Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 14 November.

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 14 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

IGC Agenda

Mr. Christopher Gill: If he will make a statement on the agenda for the current intergovernmental conference regarding Community law. [135160]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The intergovernmental conference is about making the institutional reforms necessary to allow enlargement to proceed. The issues remain those set out at the beginning of the conference; that is chiefly the size and composition of the Commission, the reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers, the extension of qualified majority voting and closer co-operation between individual member states.

Mr. Gill: I know that you, Mr. Speaker, prefer brief questions, so will the Minister simply tell us whether the Government of whom he is a member will, at Nice, veto article 280A which seeks to create the position of a European public prosecutor?

Mr. Vaz: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have made it quite clear that we do not support the idea, the concept or the proposal of an EU public prosecutor.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my hon. Friend aware that double standards are to be found in the position adopted by Conservative Members given that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who went the furthest to abolish the right of veto and introduced majority voting?

Is it not a fact that, in any enlargement of the European Union—which the Opposition claim to support—it would be necessary to have an extension of qualified majority voting; otherwise the whole institutional framework would came to a grinding halt?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. As he correctly said, what is important is that the European Union and the Commission operate efficiently. As I have said to the House before, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)—St. Francis of Maastricht as I have described him—signed the Maastricht treaty and agreed to qualified majority voting on 42 occasions during the passage of the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. In 1996, 80 per cent. of the votes taken at the European Council were taken on the basis of qualified majority voting. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that in 1998 Britain was on the losing side only twice. Therefore, we want an extension of qualified majority voting when that is in our interests.
I say to my hon. Friend that the issue is not a question of double standards, but of treble standards. Conservatives have so many different views on Europe that I have lost count of them.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May we have an assurance that the Government, in any consideration of the expansion of the European Union, will not contemplate smaller countries being treated as second-class nations within the European Union?

Mr. Vaz: I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. We believe strongly not in a two-speed Europe, but in a Europe where all the member states are treated equally. That is why we have said on several occasions that we support enhanced co-operation. However, we support it only on the basis that the decisions to be taken do not undermine the single market and treat all states the same. We will not tolerate a Europe with a hard core of countries; all countries should be treated equally.

EU Modernisation

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What support has been received from other EU member states for the ideas on modernisation of EU institutions expressed in the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw. [135161]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): My right hon. Friend's speech in Warsaw has been widely supported throughout EU member states and was warmly welcomed by the four Prime Ministers of candidate countries who were among his audience. My right hon. Friend set out a vision of Europe that harnessed the economic and political strengths of its member nations to achieve more together than they can alone, but which respected the separate identity and democracy of each member state. Yesterday, President Prodi said:
I agree entirely with the British Prime Minister. I do not want Europe to become a superstate.


I am sure that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to welcome that clear support for British policy from Romano Prodi.

Dr. Ladyman: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be aware that my constituency of South Thanet receives objective 2 aid and, because it is in east Kent, most local businesses look to the continent as their natural trading area. Both those benefits would be put under threat if the British public continue to feel disconnected from the institutions of Europe. In that context, does my right hon. Friend not agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's idea of a second Chamber in Europe where national parliamentarians can be heard is not only exciting and innovative, but might be exactly what the British people need to make them feel connected again to Europe?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend states one of the great truths about our membership of the European Union, which is that almost 60 per cent. of our exports go to other EU members. That is why it is so important for us to make a success of that membership. Part of that success will be reconnecting the democracy of Europe with EU institutions, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed that there should be a place in those institutions for British democracy and the democracy of other states through their national Parliaments.

Mr. John Redwood: As part of the modernisation of the EU, how many of the 50 British vetoes will have to be surrendered to pursue the national interest as the Foreign Secretary is suggesting? Will not the British veto and our right to self-government disappear into the Bermuda triangle that is the Government's European policy, and that they are not in line with the EU and their colleagues, but are struggling from the rear?

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that we are confident that we will keep to our bottom line of having no extension of majority voting to defence, taxation, social security, treaty changes or border control. Those will remain subjects for unanimity, and I am sure that he will welcome that.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be disappointed to hear that the Government could not, even if we wished, increase majority voting and abolish the veto to the extent that the previous Government did when he was in the Cabinet.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to protect the democracy of member states is to preserve the veto, and that any erosion of the veto erodes that democracy?

Mr. Cook: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that any erosion of the veto is necessarily against British interests. We are pressing for majority voting on a number of matters in the treaty. For example, it would be in our interest to have majority voting on the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice to get round those who impede its effectiveness and efficiency. It would be in our

interest to remove the veto on the site of the European Parliament which enables France to insist that it continues to sit in Strasbourg.
Majority voting would be in our interest in several matters. In the past two years, we have succeeded in majority votes more than any of the other large countries, which could have exercised their vetoes on proposals that we supported if they were subject to unanimity.

Mr. Francis Maude: Why does the Prime Minister still refuse to press for the flexible, multi-system European Union that the mainstream majority of the British public want? If he is serious, as he says he is, about wanting to make way for enlargement, why does he not press for reform of the biggest single obstacle to enlargement—the common agricultural policy? Why have not the Government even asked for that to be on the agenda at the Nice IGC?
What is the difference between the European Union becoming a superpower, as Mr. Prodi and the Prime Minister have suggested it will, or becoming a superstate? How reassured is the Foreign Secretary that the President of the Commission, who has talked about the Commission becoming the Government of Europe, says that he agrees with and supports the Prime Minister?

Mr. Cook: On the issue of a superpower, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech that we want Europe's economic strength to be harnessed, but not in ways that create the mechanism of a superstate. In Nice, we will be preparing for a treaty that will pave the way for enlargement by making reforms, so that Europe will be ready to receive a record increase in membership.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) has pledged that his party will demand a referendum on that treaty and campaign strongly against the treaty. Would he care to go to Warsaw and make a speech explaining to the countries of central Europe why the Conservative party will block steps that are necessary to enlarge the European Union?

Mr. Maude: I make it very clear that nothing in the Nice treaty that is controversial is essential for enlargement. The right hon. Gentleman well knows that the biggest roadblock to enlargement is the common agricultural policy, and the Government are not even discussing that.
On the charter of fundamental rights, which is part of the modernising agenda, does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Commission, which has said that the charter will become mandatory through the courts' interpretation of it, whether or not it is incorporated in the treaty, or does he agree with his Minister for Europe, who says that it will be no more useful than the Beano? Will he confirm that whatever the treaty of Nice contains, it has already been agreed that another intergovernmental conference will be held to discuss further treaty changes when the ink is barely dry on the last?

Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman is insisting that I choose between the Commission and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I will happily choose the view of my Minister of State, who expressed himself robustly and clearly.
Returning to the right hon. Gentleman's position on the treaty of Nice, is he now telling us that there is nothing controversial in the treaty? If so, why do the Tories continue to resist it? Has the right hon. Gentleman dropped his demand for a referendum on that treaty? Has he dropped his commitment to campaign strongly against it? Is that because the penny has dropped that it would make the Tory party as totally unpopular among the 12 applicant countries, as they are already with the 15 member states?

Telecommunications (Gibraltar)

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on telecommunications in Gibraltar. [135162]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): As we made clear in our response on 31 October to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Gibraltar, we have stayed in close contact with the European Commission, emphasising the urgency of the situation and our expectation that the Commission will uphold Gibraltar's rights in the European Union. We have informed the Commission that we consider the complaints made by operators in Gibraltar to be well founded. In consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, we are continuing our efforts with the Spanish Government and the Commission to resolve this important issue.

Mr. Hoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern at the fact that Spain still refuses to recognise the international code for Gibraltar and that businesses in Gibraltar are being held back by the lack of available telephone numbers. That has been highlighted recently by the failure of the Spanish Minister of Defence to telephone the Chief Minister over a visit to the submarine HMS Tireless. We are all aware of the difficulties, and I look forward to an early resolution of them.

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. I know of his great interest in these matters as a member of the Gibraltar parliamentary group and owing to his many visits to the country. The issue is important. As he knows, 30,000 telephone numbers have been allocated through the Cadiz exchange, and they will run out next year. Therefore, for the people of Gibraltar, the issue is very serious. I have discussed the matter with Chief Minister Caruana, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). I spoke yesterday afternoon to the Governor of Gibraltar. I assure my hon. Friend that we have raised the concerns with the Commission and expect it to do something positive to resolve the situation; otherwise, my hon. Friend will not be able to ring his friends in Gibraltar and they will not be able to ring out.

Mr. John Bercow: These soothing bromides simply will not do. What is the precise nature of the renewed efforts to which, in their response to the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report, the Government committed themselves? Did the Prime Minister raise the matter at the Anglo-Spanish talks last month? What exactly was the result?

Mr. Vaz: I shall not rise to the challenge to appoint the hon. Gentleman as our special envoy to sort out the problem because it requires very careful dialogue.
That dialogue has continued over the past few months. Of course the matters have been raised. The Prime Minister raises issues concerned with Gibraltar on every occasion when he meets the Spanish Prime Minister; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done so with the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs; and I have done so. We will continue to work carefully and appropriately in order to resolve the issue. That is a better approach than that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Kosovo

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [135163]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We welcome the successful and peaceful conduct of the local elections in Kosovo on 28 October. It sends a clear message that Kosovo is making further progress towards democracy and tolerance. We look forward to working with the newly elected members of the municipal authorities in tackling the many tasks ahead.

Mr. Wareing: The Defence Committee has reported that 98 per cent. of the unguided bombs dropped by the Royal Air Force on Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia during the recent conflict missed their target. Would it therefore be an appropriate gesture at this time for Her Majesty's Government to send an apology to President Kostunica and to offer compensation? How many times has the Minister visited Kosovo and other Balkan countries?

Mr. Vaz: I am surprised at my hon. Friend. Here is a golden opportunity to welcome the elections and to look forward to a period of peace, democracy and stability in the Balkans. We are not in this House to be apologists for Milosevic. We believe firmly that the people of Kosovo deserve our support—not empty gestures, but practical support, such as that the Government have put into KFOR and UNMIK. We shall continue to provide the people of Kosovo with such support, so that there is real peace and stability in the region. I would have thought that my hon. Friend would support that process.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: What progress is being made with the Balkan stability pact, with special reference to Albania, Kosovo's neighbour?

Mr. Vaz: My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will continue to work with the stability pact. The Government have a duty to ensure that it is a success. We receive reports from time to time at the General Affairs Council and will continue to support the work of the pact. It is not just a matter of individual countries in the region. The pact is intended to bring peace and stability to the whole region, and to make sure that the people of the Balkans, and Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia, have a stable future.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What would be the impact on the delicate situation in Kosovo, were George W. Bush ever to have the opportunity of carrying out his threat to withdraw United States forces from the Balkans?

Mr. Vaz: I do not have a vote in the election today. I understand that the report has been denied.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the Minister realise that on the ground in Kosovo there is considerable concern about the apparent lack of co-operation between certain of the military forces and, even worse, as I tried to expound in the defence debate last week, there is uncertainty about where and how the United Nations is carrying out its mandate? Will the Minister look into that? The last thing that we want is to let the people down by not ensuring that what we are doing is helpful to them.

Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He will know that that is an agonisingly difficult problem. We give full support to the work that is being undertaken by UNMIK, which is there to implement resolution 1244 and bring communities together. There are 4,200 civilian police officers trying to keep the peace between the communities and rebuild the confidence that was destroyed by Milosevic. It will take time, but the way forward is to make a contribution and to support the work of KFOR and UNMIK, which the Government will continue to do, following the work of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and the initiatives that they have taken.

International Criminal Court

Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about progress on the establishment of an international criminal court. [135164]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Good progress is being made. Twenty-two countries have already ratified the treaty, out of the 60 needed for establishing the international criminal court.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a Bill in the Queen's Speech to ratify the international criminal court would have cross-party support? Does he also agree that whoever is the new President of the United States, that country should take a greater role and ensure that those who commit crimes against humanity are brought to justice?

Mr. Hain: We would, indeed, like to see the US sign up to the treaty and give the international criminal court its agreement, as its participation would be important. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on the contents of the Queen's Speech, but I hope that when the Bill is introduced into Parliament, which we hope to achieve as soon as possible, it will receive all-party support. I hope that the official Opposition, and in particular those on the Front Bench, will not obstruct the

Bill, but will allow it a quick passage, so that Britain can become one of the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty and bring it into force.

Mr. David Ruffley: Given that the Minister believes in an ethical foreign policy, can he tell the House what active steps he has taken to encourage Libya and China to sign up to the international criminal court?

Mr. Hain: We encourage all countries, including Libya and China, to sign up to the international criminal court. In our bilateral diplomacy with all countries in the world, we consistently pressure them to do so. We are committed to the court. It is a way of catching war criminals and ending the situation whereby the Pol Pots, Pinochets and all the dictators of the world continue to act with impunity. It is part of our agenda for human rights, of which we are proud. Our record is a proud one.

Mr. Desmond Browne: In common with many other hon. Members, I welcome the publication of the Bill to ratify the Rome statute and look forward with optimism to its inclusion in the Queen's Speech. Does my hon. Friend accept that as long as the Bill remains silent on the issue of state immunity, there will remain a potential legal loophole through which past and serving Ministers who may seek refuge in this country may be able to escape?

Mr. Hain: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. We have listened closely to representations made to us during the consultation period on the draft Bill. I think that he will be encouraged by the response when he sees the Bill published in its final form.

Dr. Julian Lewis: May I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) set out in his main question? When the war crimes tribunals sit, there should be retribution for the past and a deterrent to obscene atrocity in future. I express some concern that it is taking as long as it is for Britain to ratify the process and to get it under way.

Mr. Hain: We are committed to achieve ratification as quickly as possible. I am delighted that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support. It is a unique experience for me, but I am delighted to agree with virtually everything that he said.

Israel

Mr. Bob Laxton: If he will make a statement on the situation in Israel and the occupied territories. [135165]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I visited the countries of the middle east peace process last month. In the course of three days, I twice visited Prime Minister Barak and twice visited President Arafat. In all my meetings and in every public statement, I appealed for an end to the bloodshed and a return to the negotiating table.
Britain continues to press these two urgent priorities on all parties to the peace process. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received the Foreign Minister of Israel. This afternoon, after Question Time, I shall meet Nabil Sha'ath, the foreign spokesman for the Palestinian National Authority.
No one should underestimate the challenge to the peace process from the bitterness and hostility created by the recent bloodshed. Both Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat have agreed to visit Washington over the next week. We hope that this can pave the way for substantive talks on a peace settlement, without which there will be no secure peace for the peoples of the middle east.

Mr. Laxton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that what has happened over the past five weeks clearly demonstrates that the Palestinian, people want the removal of 33 years of military rule over the occupied territories? Does he agree also that the Camp David agreement appears not to be working? Will he join with me in calling for a peace negotiation that is based upon UN resolutions 242 and 338, and following from that the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the west bank and Gaza?

Mr. Cook: The peace process, which was launched at Oslo, is built upon those resolutions. Britain played a key part in the drafting of resolution 242, and is cognisant of its terms. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached at Camp David. However, we came much closer to it at Camp David than we have ever been during the other eight years of the peace process. The area of territory that was still in dispute at the end of the Camp David talks was down to 2 or 3 per cent. I hope that the bloodshed of the past two months will not prevent us from returning to where we were after Camp David and completing the task. If we do not, it is difficult to see an outcome in which there can be any permanent guarantee against future bloodshed.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman, acknowledging the great difficulties that exist, nevertheless, with all his support and authority, impress upon the Israelis the essential nature of a more proportionate response to these difficulties? Will he agree that all of us who understand the awful history, difficulties and tragedies of the Israelis over the years, find it impossible to understand how they can use heavy guns, machine guns and heavy weapons on children?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the sensitive way in which he has approached a difficult issue. I can assure him that we have already raised in our high level meetings with leaders of the Israeli Government our concern about the need for a proportional response to crowd control. We will continue to do that.
Many people throughout the world, whatever their view may be of the peace process, have been moved by the death of, and injury to, young children, often those who may not have been taking part in the throwing of rocks. It is important that we find a way forward in which we

do not escalate the violence. Every fresh funeral breeds another crowd and breeds also further bitterness, which prevents us from securing a peace settlement.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the current situation has been the failure to increase the living standards of the Palestinian people? How much of the blame for that does he attribute to the Palestinian National Authority, and Yasser Arafat in particular, for diverting aid intended for education and economic development to other activities, including training terrorists?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend correctly draws attention to the fact that, during the peace process, the living standards of residents of Gaza and many west bank towns went down, not up. There are many reasons for that.
Israel has to accept its role in the development of Gaza and the west bank. An immediate problem involves the closure of access to the Israeli labour market—more than 100,000 residents of Gaza have been put out of work. If the residents of Gaza and the west bank are to move away from violence and street demonstrations, it is important for them to find a way back to employment and to give them the opportunity to have an occupation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although the security of the state of Israel is of paramount importance, does the Foreign Secretary agree that equality of treatment between the Palestinian state—the Palestinian authority—and the state of Israel is critical? In my view, the Palestinians believe that they do not get a fair deal.
Whatever the outcome of today's United States elections, will the United Kingdom Government contact the new President with a view to steering peace back on to the real agenda in the middle east?

Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall of course make early contact with the new Administration, who will not take over until the end of January. President Clinton will remain in office until then, and I am sure that any incoming President will support his work in the middle east peace process. His knowledge of and commitment to the peace process is wide and deep. During his remaining two or three months in office, I hope that both sides will use his commitment and expertise to find a way forward.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I support all my right hon. Friend's efforts in the peace process. Does he agree that Israel's determination to dominate, control and set out the future of the Palestinians is the biggest obstacle to peace in the region? Does he also agree that if there are to be future negotiations, the Israelis should treat their partner in those negotiations—the Palestinians—as equals? That failure to do so made it clear to Palestinians—young and old, and angry and moderate—that what was achieved at Sharm el-Sheikh, Camp David and Oslo was not good enough. A successful future must be based on the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) and,


in particular, on Israel's acceptance in the peace process that Palestinian refugees have the right of return. If not, there can be no peace.

Mr. Cook: I have already discussed with the Israeli Foreign Minister the importance of including refugee return in any overall package. I stress that good progress was made at Camp David. I strongly suggest to the House that we return to first principles in the peace process—we should pick up from the progress that was made and appreciate how far we got at Camp David. In the immediate future, we must try to secure an absence of bloodshed, which will enable the negotiations to recommence. That is why it is important for both sides—not simply Israel—to honour the commitments that they made at Sharm el-Sheikh to put an end to violence.

Mr. Francis Maude: The whole House will share a common concern about the recent, tragic turn of events in Israel and the occupied territories, and the Foreign Secretary's hope that the agreements made at Sharm el-Sheikh will be implemented. We of course recognise Israel's right to live in peace and security and the right of Palestinians to self-government.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one lesson of the past few weeks may be that it might be unhelpful to press impracticable issues—I refer in particular to the final status of Jerusalem—further and faster than the parties feel able to move? With hindsight, the situation may have moved too far, too fast, with the result that events have moved decisively backwards and the peace process has taken a turn for the worse.

Mr. Cook: In reality, the peace process has reached the stage of final status talks, to which all the difficult issues were reserved, including that of Jerusalem. It is important for Israel that any peace settlement should include a statement of an end of the conflict by the Palestinian side, but it is difficult to see a Palestinian leadership making such a statement without a resolution to the division of Jerusalem. That is why we may now be in a position in which those difficult issues have to be resolved as part of a package, and both sides will have to recognise that they will not necessarily obtain everything that they want on every element of the package, but that the package itself offers them security, stability and peace for their people, which is the greatest prize of all.

Iraq

Mr. Donald Anderson: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Iraq and those items which the Iraqi Government are currently allowed to import. [135166]

Mr. Steve McCabe: If he will make a statement on the impact of sanctions on the humanitarian situation in Iraq. [135171]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We continue to take the lead in alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of a ruthless dictator who cares nothing for their welfare. Under Security Council resolution 1284, the oil for food programme will provide more than $16 billion for the Iraqi people this year alone, paying for a wide range of

civilian imports from food and medicine to equipment to improve water and sanitation facilities, to spare parts for the oil industry.

Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the solution to sanctions is in the hands of Saddam Hussein himself by his taking the comparatively simply step of complying with the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. An hon. Member is censuring me for the way in which I call Members. I will not allow that, and the hon. Gentleman should take himself from the Chamber.

Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the solution to sanctions is in the hands of Saddam Hussein by his complying with the relevant United Nations resolutions in respect of informing the international community of his weapons of mass destruction? My hon. Friend has mentioned the sums available to Saddam Hussein, but to what extent is that being spent for the benefit of the people or on self-aggrandisement and palaces for the dictator himself?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. Britain wants to see sanctions suspended, but the only vehicle for achieving that is the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1284. In return for allowing in arms inspectors—a new team headed by the widely respected international diplomat Hans Blix—who will check on the capabilities in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, sanctions could be suspended within a matter of months. We should all unite—critics of sanctions as well as supporters of the United Nations policy in international law—in achieving that, rather than playing Saddam Hussein's game and allowing him to score cheap propaganda victories by humanitarian flights. We should also bear in mind that, while his people have been suffering over the years, he imports thousands of bottles of whisky, wine and beer and cigarettes by the million, and surrounds himself in obscene luxury.

Mr. McCabe: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that Saddam Hussein must bear considerable guilt for the suffering experienced by the poor people of Iraq, but does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that it is right for Britain to pursue an open-ended sanctions policy against Iraq, which results in suffering for innocent children and others, while simultaneously pursuing a preferential trade arrangement with the authorities in Iran? Is my hon. Friend aware of the extent to which the mullahs in Iran are acquiring weapons of mass destruction?

Mr. Hain: We are concerned about Iran's capability in weapons of mass destruction, especially its acquisition of large numbers of missiles, and we continue to press the Iranians on that matter. But I do not think that my hon. Friend will compare the Iranians' relations with their neighbours and with their own people with Saddam Hussein's record, which is uniquely brutal.
I must disagree with my hon. Friend on sanctions. Our commitment to sanctions is not open-ended. We want to see the sanctions suspended. We spent eight to nine months at the United Nations in New York achieving the new resolution which provides for that very opportunity.


All that is required is for Saddam Hussein to sign up to that resolution and the sanctions could be suspended within six months. Everyone should work together to achieve that objective.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not it obvious that policy towards Iraq is based on containment by utilising the deterrent effect of credible military force? What possible contribution do non-military sanctions make to that policy? They do grievous harm to the ordinary people of Iraq, they have no effect on Saddam Hussein, his whisky or his brutality, they give him an enormous propaganda advantage and they cause grave disquiet throughout the Arab world. Ten years after the end of the Gulf war, is not it time for the United Nations to lift the non-military sanctions?

Mr. Hain: I respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record on the matter, and his broad support, which I acknowledge, for the policy of the Government and the United Nations. However, $16 billion of oil for food money is now available to alleviate and end the suffering of the people of Iraq. That sum, per Iraqi, is equivalent to three times the amount that each Egyptian spends on food and medicine each year. It is a massive amount of money, and we must work to ensure that Saddam Hussein stops blocking it and allows all of it to reach his people.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about targeted sanctions, lifting commercial sanctions could allow the entry of dual-use goods, and allow Saddam Hussein to re-equip his infrastructure and rebuild the weapons of mass destruction, which he has used against his people in the north—the Kurds—and his neighbours.

Sir David Madel: The Minister said that sanctions could be suspended provided that United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq. Will he confirm that that is the unanimous view of the Security Council?

Mr. Hain: It is the policy of the Security Council, which Britain will work extremely hard to implement. There is no hidden agenda; if we can get Saddam Hussein to comply with admitting the arms inspectors, we shall work tirelessly to implement the full Security Council resolution. I am confident that we shall be able to achieve that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: What methods do we use to harm Saddam Hussein that do not harm his people?

Mr. Hain: We implement sanctions that contain his ability to threaten his people. He has done that repeatedly, for example, by inflicting chemical weapons on the Kurds. He has also threatened his neighbours by invading Iran and Kuwait. From oil smuggling—equivalent to a small proportion of his total oil production—he has been able to surround himself with a considerable security blanket and amass considerable wealth. However, like Slobodan Milosevic, all dictators learn that they cannot survive for ever.
In retrospect, our sanctions policy will be perceived to have worked to achieve our objective.

Mr. Richard Spring: Does the Minister agree that Iraq's humanitarian predicament must be viewed in the light of its treatment of 605 mostly Kuwaiti prisoners, including women and students? What pressures can be brought to bear to get the Iraqis to provide information, even information such as whether those prisoners are dead or alive? Does he agree that humanity and decency demand that?

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I pursued it with the Kuwaitis when I visited Kuwait last week. Hundreds of Kuwaiti families are in the dreadful position of simply not knowing what has happened to their relatives who have disappeared. The Iraqis have shown no accountability. We continue to take all opportunities to press them to deal with the issue, and to discuss with Ambassador Vorontsov his work on behalf of the United Nations to resolve the problem.

Sweden

Mr. Martin Linton: What assessment he has made of the state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Sweden. [135167]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Relations are excellent. A month ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had talks in London with Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Sweden in May, and I visited in September. There have been 25 other substantive ministerial visits in both directions so far this year, covering most Departments, as well as ministerial contacts in the margins of the European Union and other multilateral forums. The main aim has been policy co-ordination on European Union issues, especially with a view to the Swedish European Union presidency, which begins on 1 January.

Mr. Linton: Is the Minister aware of the Swedish Government's determination, forcefully expressed to me in Stockholm last week, to drive forward European Union enlargement during their presidency? Will he ensure that the United Kingdom Government do all that they can to support them in their desire to make clear progress on broadening European Union membership and negotiations with applicant countries?

Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his highly successful visit to Stockholm last week. As he knows, the United Kingdom is the best friend of enlargement. Through the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in Budapest and Warsaw, we have set out clearly our desire for the European Union to be enlarged as quickly as possible. That is why we need to complete the intergovernmental conference on time. It is essential that we give a message to those countries that we want them in.
As my hon. Friend knows, there are three Es to the Swedish presidency: employment initiatives, environment and enlargement, to which I add a fourth—Mr. Sven Goran Eriksson. I am sure that his appointment will build on relations between our two countries.

Mr. David Heath: Is not Sweden our natural ally in securing major reform of the common agricultural policy? Is it not a tragedy that, over many years, we have failed to build effective coalitions of like-minded nations which would have secured that reform much earlier?

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right. We failed to build those alliances because we had a Conservative Government until May 1997, but, since then, British Ministers have been out there in the European Union fully engaging with their European counterparts, ensuring that Britain's interests are put first and foremost on the agenda of Europe. We will continue to do what we have to do to reform the CAP.

Mr. Ian Davidson: May I point out that the enthusiasm for the success of Mr. Eriksson is not universally shared in the Chamber?
The Swedish Government intend to push the creation of employment as one of the objectives of their presidency. If they are successful, it will clearly demonstrate that employment generation does not depend on a single currency throughout Europe.

Mr. Vaz: I thought hard before adding the fourth E, for the reasons that were outlined by my hon. Friend.
I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with the Swedish Government on a range of issues. On the single currency, he knows that our position is absolutely clear. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) has recently resigned from the No Turning Back group. He cannot, however, turn his back on the likes of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), whose policy is completely different from the policy of Conservative Front Benchers.
Our policy is very clear. In principle, we are in favour of joining the single currency. In practice, we will do so only when the economic conditions are right. We will assess those conditions early in the next Parliament in the interests of this country and this country alone. In the final analysis, the people of Britain will decide whether we join the single currency.

Mr. Richard Spring: Has the hon. Gentleman discussed how Sweden's traditional neutral defence posture can be reconciled with the proposed EU defence structure, given its concerns? I remind him that the Prime Minister described plans for a merger between the Western European Union and the EU as an "ill-judged transplant operation". What has changed?

Mr. Vaz: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we on the Government Front Bench have to deal with real Ministers and have real bilateral contacts. We do not have to quote selectively from documents. I assure him that we are totally at one with the Swedes on those initiatives.

They are fully involved in the initiative that was put forward by the Government, with the support of the French. We will continue to work with them as EU partners to ensure that the common security and defence policy is a success.

Sierra Leone

Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the situation in Sierra Leone. [135168]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I spoke to President Kabbah of Sierra Leone at the weekend. He warmly expressed his people's strong welcome for Britain's continued commitment to building a safe future for them.
We have completed the initial training of the first three battalions for the Sierra Leonean army. We will continue our programme to equip the Government of Sierra Leone with an army that can defeat the rebels. In the past week, we have confirmed that we will provide the United Nations headquarters with a British chief of staff. We will pursue with determination our goal of a Sierra Leone free from fear and rid of the rebels.

Mr. Brake: The Foreign Secretary will know that 1 million people in Sierra Leone are not receiving humanitarian aid because they happen to be in rebel-led areas. He will also be aware of the risk of the conflict spreading to neighbouring countries. Will he confirm that the United Kingdom will adopt a higher profile in Sierra Leone, that it will commit itself to UNAMSIL, and that it will remain committed in Sierra Leone until stability is achieved in the region?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has raised real concerns about the gravity of the situation, and I strongly agree with him about the humanitarian position. I should point out, however, that the Government have done more for humanitarian aid to Sierra Leone than has any other country: in the past year alone, we have provided £30 million worth of such aid. We will, of course, continue to do all that we can to get it to the people who need it.
As for UNAMSIL, I stress to the hon. Gentleman that Britain is already making a bigger military commitment to Sierra Leone than any other western nation. We have more troops on the ground there than many contributors to UNAMSIL. We are performing a task that no one else is performing: we are equipping the Government of Sierra Leone with an army that can take the fight to the rebels. We have also committed ourselves to a rapid reaction response in the event of its being needed by the UN forces. We cannot do all that and also contribute to UNAMSIL. I am confident that ours is the right priority, and it has been agreed to by President Kabbah.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right in saying that this country has done more than any other western nation to support the legitimate democratic Government of Sierra Leone. If, however, we are to create a climate in which people throughout Sierra Leone can live without fear, what more pressure can be brought to bear on those who profit from its diamonds—


neighbouring African countries—on those who are happy to provide the rebels in Sierra Leone with arms without asking any questions about their use, and, in particular, on those who seek closer relations with the European Union while at the same time providing weapons with which the people of Sierra Leone are being murdered?

Mr. Cook: Speaking from experience, my hon. Friend draws attention to an important dimension of the problem: the extent to which some neighbouring countries—one in particular—support the rebels, and profit from the conflict and atrocities in Sierra Leone. Britain has taken the lead in proposing a scheme to monitor the diamonds that are leaving Sierra Leone, and we have UN backing for it. I hope that that will make it increasingly difficult for the rebels to sell their diamonds, and to acquire the weapons that they need to maintain the conflict.
I assure my hon. Friend that, together with the United States, we are increasing the pressure on countries in the region that are assisting the rebels rather than assisting peace.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Foreign Secretary provide a clear statement of purpose, telling us exactly what we are trying to achieve in Sierra Leone, what resources—both military and civil—we are putting towards that, and when he expects the task to be completed?

Mr. Cook: The House has been given a number of statements explaining precisely what military commitments we are making.
The hon. Gentleman asks what we are trying to achieve. I will answer that very simply. I went to Sierra Leone in the summer, and visited a camp for amputees where I saw 2,000 people whose arms or legs had been lopped off by the rebels—including babies who were unable to crawl before their arms were lopped off by crazed rebels. My objective in Sierra Leone is to prevent anyone else from having arms lopped off by the rebels.

Conflict Diamonds

Judy Mallaber: If he will make a statement about conflict diamonds. [135169]

Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement about conflict diamonds. [135173]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): The Government have led the way in the creation of an international certification scheme to deny conflict diamonds access to world markets, and help to protect the legitimate trade on which so many livelihoods depend.

Judy Mallaber: I welcome the hard work done by my hon. Friend and the Foreign Office in cleaning up the diamond trade; but does my hon. Friend accept that sanctions-busters are still taking diamonds from Revolutionary United Front rebels in Sierra Leone and from Unita in Angola, and supplying them with weapons that are used to perpetuate these murderous wars?

Does he agree that Victor Bout is a major supplier of arms to the rebels? What action is being taken to stop him breaking UN sanctions?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that sanctions-busters are continuing to perpetuate the conflict in Sierra Leone and Angola, with the result that countless lives are being lost and mutilations are taking place. Victor Bout is indeed the chief sanctions-buster, and is a merchant of death who owns air companies that ferry in arms and other logistic support for the rebels in Angola and Sierra Leone and take out the diamonds which pay for those arms. All the countries that are allowing him to use their facilities and aircraft bases to ferry that trade in death into Sierra Leone and Angola are aiding and abetting people who are turning their guns on British soldiers, among others, in Sierra Leone. It is important that they stop doing that.

Mrs. Williams: Will my hon. Friend tell me what pressure has been put on the Governments of Liberia, Rwanda, Togo and Burkina Faso to stop sanctions-busters dealing in illicit diamonds and operating in their countries in blatant defiance of United Nations sanctions?

Mr. Hain: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter, as one of the cruel ironies and tragedies of the appalling conflict in Sierra Leone and Angola is the fact that fellow Africans are allowing sanctions-busters to operate within their boundaries, and carry in arms and take out diamonds. That practice perpetuates such conflicts. All the Governments named by my hon. Friend, including some Presidents and senior Ministers, have been complicit in that barbarous trade, and it is vital that they cease it immediately, comply with UN sanctions and help end those wars

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is not it essential that the conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone cease to be such as soon as possible, and that the areas affected are returned to the control of the Government? Would it not have been better if that had been achieved by a British-led UN force or, indeed, a British-led Sierra Leonean force in the first instance, so that the Sierra Leonean Government had regained control of those diamonds early on? How long will it take us to train the Sierra Leonean army to achieve that task on its own?

Mr. Hain: We have already helped to train 3,000 members of the Sierra Leonean army and another 3,000 will receive further training in the coming months. One will not end the conflict, win the war or create peace unless one takes control of the diamond-mining areas, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point that out. The way to achieve that is for the Sierra Leonean army to go in, with UNAMSIL filling in behind, to take control of those diamond mines and stay there permanently, or at least for the foreseeable future.
The new national certification scheme that the Sierra Leonean Government have introduced will allow the proceeds from those diamonds to make the people of Sierra Leone rich, instead of poor and torn apart by war.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Although I welcome the initiative on conflict diamonds, will the Minister explain what happened to joined-up government? He will be aware of the civil war in the Congo and the problems there, and know that the Zimbabwean army is operating in the Congo. I am sure that he is also aware that a British Army team is training the Zimbabwean army that has gone to the Congo, where its sole purpose is to protect the diamond trade that is lining the pockets of Mugabe and his henchmen.

Mr. Hain: I agree that it is intolerable that the Zimbabwean army is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo helping to perpetuate that war, draining Zimbabwe's own budget and assisting with the collapse of that beautiful country. However, the British military advisory and training team in Harare is not contributing to that effort. It is not there to train the Zimbabwean army, but to support a regional peacekeeping initiative and work with the UN to bring stability to the region. That is the purpose of that British team's operation.

Yugoslavia

Mrs. Alice Mahon: What help the UK will be giving the new Government of Yugoslavia to further advance its integration into Europe. [135170]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We warmly welcome the powerful rejection of Milosevic by the people of Serbia. We acted immediately to lift European sanctions. We have admitted Yugoslavia to the European stability pact for the Balkans. Britain is also supporting Yugoslavia's admission, at the ministerial meeting later this month, to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Since the fall of Milosevic, the European Union has allocated 200 million euros for immediate aid and reconstruction. We promised that if the people of Serbia voted for democratic change, we would bring down the barriers between them and Europe. We are delivering on that promise.

Mrs. Mahon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks on aid for Yugoslavia. One of the main consequences of the war was the blocking of the Danube, because bridges over it were bombed. I am therefore glad that the Secretary of State has made it clear that aid and not loans will be made available. However, does he not agree that circulating planted questions—in the hope that a hapless Back Bencher will stand up and call those of us who opposed the bombings abusive names—will do nothing towards achieving peace and reconciliation in the Balkans?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the House that I did not plant the question that my hon. Friend asked.

Far East Prisoners of War (Ex Gratia Payment)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): With permission, I should like to make a statement.
In April this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held a meeting with representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the British groups who had been held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war. He subsequently initiated a reconsideration of the longstanding policy of the Government towards those far eastern prisoners. The review took time to conduct because of the complexity of the issues involved, but it has now been completed.
I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that, as a result of the review, the Government have decided to make a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to each of the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity. In cases in which a person who would have been entitled to the payment has died, the surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead.
As hon. Members will recall, on a number of occasions in recent months, in debates in which many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken, the House has debated the situation of those who were held prisoner in the far east during the second world war. We had those debates because what happened to those prisoners was often so appalling that, for many, it has remained with them for the rest of their lives.
Many hon. Members will be aware of the stories told by now frail constituents about that terrible time, and members of the public will be familiar with the books and films about it. However, if we look back at the histories, we come across a simple, stark fact that makes clear to everyone the enormity of what happened: of the 50,016 British service personnel who were reported captured by the Japanese, 12,433 died or were killed in captivity. In other words, conditions were so bad that one in four did not survive.
We are all very thankful that such a situation did not occur anywhere else during the second world war and has not recurred since. The unique nature of Japanese captivity in the far east was recognised in the 1950s, when those who had been held became eligible for modest payments from Japanese assets, made under the provisions of the 1951 San Francisco treaty of peace with Japan. As hon. Members are aware, the maximum payment available at that time was £76 10s.
In the intervening years, the former far east prisoners pursued the issue of additional compensation with Japan. More recently, they have also campaigned for the British Government to make a payment. However, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will be well aware, it has been the policy of successive Governments over many years not to make payments in such circumstances.
We are now making an exception for the British groups that were held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war in recognition of the unique circumstances of their collective captivity. Those who will be entitled to receive the payment are former members of Her Majesty's

armed forces who were made prisoners of war, former members of the Merchant Navy who were captured and imprisoned, and British civilians who were interned. Certain other former military personnel in the colonial forces, the Indian army and the Burmese armed forces who received compensation in the 1950s under United Kingdom auspices will also be eligible. As I said earlier, in cases in which a person who would have been entitled to the payment has died, the surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead.
We estimate that up to 16,700 people may be eligible for the ex gratia payments, which will accordingly cost up to £167 million to make. I will not go into detail about the new payment scheme now, except to say that this single ex gratia payment will not be taxable, nor will it be taken into account for benefits purposes. We intend to make these payments as quickly as possible, although it will take a little time for the appropriate regulations to be made. We expect everything to be in place by February.
Further details of the scheme are being published today in a leaflet by the War Pensions Agency, which will be administering it. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The leaflet and a claim form will also be available on the agency's website.
The Government recognise that many UK citizens, both those serving in the armed forces and civilians, have had to endure great hardship at different times and in different circumstances, but the experience of those who went into captivity in the far east during the second world war was unique. We have said before that we believe the country owes a debt of honour to them. I hope that I am speaking for everyone here when I say that today something concrete has been done to recognise that debt.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On behalf of the Opposition, I wholeheartedly and without reservation welcome what is frankly a generous settlement. As the Minister knows, we support the inquiry and the settlement and there is no question but that he has our support today. I also congratulate the Royal British Legion and far east prisoners of war on conducting a dignified and successful campaign that has finally brought their case to the Government's attention and resulted in a settlement.
The Minister was clear about the appalling death rate and special circumstances that apply to all those who were Japanese prisoners of war, and on that basis we all welcome his statement today. The settlement applies to all service men, to those who served in the merchant marines as well as to civilians. That was a key area of concern and I welcome the Government's generosity.
I particularly welcome the Minister's reference to widows. There is no question but that war widows occupy a very special place in the hearts and minds of the British public for the privations that they suffered, first not knowing what had happened and then discovering the terrible circumstances under which their husbands suffered. I also welcome the generous inclusion of those who served in the ex-colonial forces—the Indian army and the Burmese forces. It is a generous gesture and quite right and proper. The fact that the settlement is not being taxed and will not affect benefits is also a welcome gesture.
This week of all weeks, it is absolutely right that the Government should make a proper and final settlement. During the war, those who served in the far east became


known as the forgotten army. Sadly, after the war, they became known as the forgotten heroes. It is so right that we have remembered them today.

Dr. Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words and associate myself with everything that he said. I am glad to say that this is not a party political issue. Governments of successive hue have held a consistent line on the issue for many years. I am glad to say that today we have changed that.

Mr. David Winnick: This is indeed good news, including for the widows. Are we not today recognising our debt of honour to these very brave people who suffered so much? Obviously, compensation should have been paid by the Japanese; failing that, we have done our duty and rightly so. Would it not be appropriate at this stage for us to remember again all those who were held as prisoners—military and internees—who were never to return home and who suffered and died as a result of the starvation diet, the slave working conditions, the cruelty and often the torture? It would be a sad day if this country ever forgot them or forgot to honour their memory.

Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He, with other Members on both sides, has played a major part in keeping the matter at the forefront of our attention. We shall take on board all that he has said about recognition.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: This has been a victory—if victory it be—for Back Benchers, and I congratulate those on both sides who have pressed the case with vigour and robustness over a long period. Does the Minister agree that, welcome though £10,000 may be, the true measure of his announcement for many of those who will receive the money will be the public recognition, albeit belated, of the terrible privations that they had to endure? I hope that that will help the recipients, if not to forget, at least more easily to come to terms with those terrible experiences.

Dr. Moonie: I entirely agree. No financial sum can be adequate compensation for what those people suffered. This token ex gratia payment will, I hope, go some way to relieving their distress.

Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend pass on to our Government the congratulations of my constituents, particularly ex-service men? Does he agree that we, as a civilised and decent society, should recognise all the—often young—men and women who have put their lives or health on the line for their country? Does he agree that they all deserve recognition of this nature? That said, I do not wish to spoil today's events, and I congratulate the Minister and thank the Government.

Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend. The announcement will clearly be welcome in all parts of the country, and I join him in paying tribute to all those who have given their lives or suffered for their country.

Mr. Mark Oaten: On behalf of the all-party group, I thank the Government for the

announcement. When the Government come to organise the detail of the payments, will they consult the Royal British Legion and POW groups so that we can be sure not to miss any individual who may be entitled to claim compensation?

Dr. Moonie: I pay tribute again to the work of the all-party group on this subject. I guarantee absolutely that we shall consult all those involved to ensure that no one misses out on the payment.

Mr. Bruce George: I am delighted to participate in a rare moment of unanimity in a defence-related debate. On behalf of my constituents and the Select Committee on Defence, which I chair, and in my role as honorary adviser to the Royal British Legion, I am delighted to express my gratitude to all the Departments that participated in this welcome statement. The Government appear to have covered all possible angles of criticism by including widows, merchant seamen, civilians and those from the Commonwealth and empire who fought on our behalf.
I ask the Minister to pass on our rare collective congratulations to the many organisations that fought through all adversity and overcame every obstacle to achieve justice. Finally, and without ringing a note of disharmony, I hope that the Japanese Government are hanging their heads in shame at the fact that it was left to the British and Canadian Governments to repair the damage caused by something that was not their fault and to take the responsibility for it.

Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend. It has taken us a long time to come to this decision, largely because of its complexity and the need to ensure that all those who are properly due the payment will receive it. A lot of hard work was done by our officials, and I am happy to say that it has paid off.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank and congratulate the Government, but must ask the Minister to ensure that the old and frail are not faced with filling in complicated forms before they can have the money.

Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do all in our power to ensure that compensation is as simple and easy to understand as possible. I am well aware of the difficulty that elderly people have with filling in forms.

Jane Griffiths: I join my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in expressing a heartfelt welcome for the statement. Many of us have hoped for such a move for a considerable time. Can the Minister confirm whether compensation for civilians who were prisoners will be paid to those who were children at the time, or whether it will apply only to their parents? Does he join me in hoping that there will be no move in the House to condemn the Japanese Government at this time? Demands have been made for an apology from the Japanese and I understand the feelings behind those demands, but at this time we should welcome the move by the British Government, and that of the Canadian Government previously, to give some—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]


Does my hon. Friend agree that, today, we should simply be glad that the veterans and former prisoners of war will now at last receive some compensation?

Dr. Moonie: I can confirm that all the prisoners are entitled to the payment. Of course, those who were children then are no longer children now. The position of the Japanese Government has been clearly stated and recognised in international law. They have expressed regret for what happened and, today, I think that I should leave it at that.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate this Labour Government on taking a courageous decision—a decision that was deferred for far too long by successive previous Governments. In congratulating the Government and welcoming the announcements, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the decision, which will be widely welcomed by all who were affected, would be greatly enhanced if, even at this late stage, the Japanese Government had the decency to apologise?

Dr. Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. There is little that I could say to disagree.

Mr. Denis MacShane: In welcoming this announcement, for which many of us have campaigned, I must mention Arthur Titherington and Keith Martin, who have steadfastly maintained the campaign for many years. We must also have regard to the Prime Minister's victory. For 50 years, Foreign Office lawyers said that the money could not be paid, Ministry of Defence bureaucrats said that it should not be because it would set a precedent, and Treasury officials said that it must not be because it would cost money. While those wonderful people resisted the Japanese army for five years, this Labour Prime Minister has defeated Whitehall—and for that we should all give thanks.

Dr. Moonie: I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have listened closely to my hon. Friend. Something was needed to break the logjam of many years and my right hon. Friend provided it.

Mr. Julian Brazier: May I underline the comments of the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), including those on the Japanese? I congratulate the Government. This announcement will be very welcome in Kent among members of the Buffs, the Royal West Kents and other elements of the armed forces who served in the far east. Finally, as the grandson of an Indian army officer, may I say how welcome are the provisions on certain members of that army?

Dr. Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has for some time been associated with the efforts of Labour Back Benchers in this matter and I recognise his contribution.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: May I add my congratulations to the Government on behalf of the many far east prisoners of war in my constituency who were caught up in the surrender of Singapore, in particular Mr. Ian Mitchell and Mr. Bill Griffiths, both of whom have written moving books on the subject? On top of all

the generous tributes that have rightly been paid to the Government for removing a logjam of 40 years, as has been said, this may be an occasion at least to press the Japanese Government, however gently—even if they feel incapable of offering a formal apology at the moment—to make more effort in their schools, education and curriculum to tell the truth about the second world war and the situation of those prisoners of war.

Dr. Moonie: We are well aware of the situation, and recognise what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Martin Bell: On behalf of the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association, of which I am president, I thank the Minister for the announcement. It is a debt of honour, long overdue, paid to a band of British heroes to whom we owe so much for their service and sacrifice. As politicians generally—because this is not a party political issue—perhaps we might reproach ourselves that it has taken so long.

Dr. Moonie: I pay tribute again to the sterling work undertaken by the hon. Gentleman on this matter. After his three and a half years in this place, he will realise that it is sometimes difficult to move Governments from their chosen path—especially when the Government are trying to do that to themselves. I am happy that we have managed to succeed on this occasion.

Mr. Chris Pond: May I add my thanks on behalf of many of my constituents? I also congratulate those organisations and individuals involved in the matter. I add personal thanks because my father fought in Burma and never lost the fear that he might be taken prisoner.
As we prepare for the weekend when we shall honour the dead of those wars, is this not the best way in which we can repay our debt of honour to many of those survivors who are still living, and to surviving spouses?

Dr. Moonie: It is significant that we have managed to do so at a time when we shall be returning to our constituents at the weekend to join them in remembering those who died in successive conflicts.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Minister will remember our exchanges over the years on this subject. I offer my unreserved congratulations on his announcement today. The statement was comprehensive; he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are rightly to be complimented on it.
I remind the Minister of the remarks made by Members on both sides of the House—his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was the first to mention the matter: a Japanese Government should have been making this gesture. If the Government of Japan want to see their country join the full community of civilised nations, they will hang their heads in shame that we have had to make this gesture today.
I have a question on one detail—not to carp, but to ensure that no problem arises. After the Minister's statement today, it will inevitably take several months to see the whole matter through. Am I right to assume that the announcement refers to those survivors or widows of survivors who are alive today? Unhappily and inevitably,


some of them will no longer be alive by the time the process is complete. If the Minister cannot clarify the matter now, will he write to me?

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to pay tribute to the passion with which the hon. Gentleman fought his case during several debates. I am also happy to assure him that what he says is absolutely right. All those alive today will benefit. We shall do everything in our power to make the payments as quickly as possible; we do realise that some people will die before we can make them.

Mr. John McFall: I thank the Minister for his statement. For many of my constituents who were Japanese prisoners of war, the Japanese Government's expression of regret is still not enough.
It must be recognised that, despite the Minister's modesty in pointing out that the issue is not party political, it took a Labour Government to deliver the settlement. For many of the survivors, the £10,000 is not the real point; it is the fact that they carried a psychological burden for many years and that society has now recognised the trauma that they suffered. This is a day of celebration for those former prisoners of war, because they have finally received that recognition.

Dr. Moonie: Yes, I am happy to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend about the many people who suffered during that conflict.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I thank the Government and I congratulate the Minister on the announcement. After hearing the graphic account of my constituent, Arthur Christie of Porthmadog, who suffered with many of his colleagues at unit 731 in Manchuria, I know why the statement was necessary; it should have been made a long time ago.
The Minister mentioned that widows alive today will all—quite rightly—benefit. Does that include widows who have subsequently remarried?

Dr. Moonie: That is the case.

Mr. Peter Bradley: The announcement is welcome not least because it is inclusive and generous and also because it is based on an ethical decision rather than on the expediency of the past.
Will my hon. Friend join me in regretting that it has taken so long? In fact, it has taken so long that my constituent, Mr. Ian Mason-Summers, who waged a long and futile battle with the War Pensions Agency for some recompense, has died. I am glad that his widow will now benefit.
Will my hon. Friend give the House a clear assurance that the Government will continue to put pressure on the Japanese Government to issue an apology to those who were subject to such persecution that we had to make this payment? For those who survived, it is a matter not of

compensation but of principle. That principle demands that in due course—indeed, the sooner the better—there should be an apology from the Japanese Government.

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will be bringing his views and the views of many here to the attention of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Given that a number of the far east prisoners of war will have died since the 1951 treaty of San Francisco, either unmarried or without a surviving spouse, will the Minister—I accept the generosity of his statement and congratulate him on it—consider making a payment to a suitable military charity or charities in memory of those prisoners of war and to assist with their work?

Dr. Moonie: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have managed to be generous today and to recognise the unique suffering and the unique collective experience of those who were in Japanese prisoner of war camps during the second world war.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: As one of those who have pursued this issue with the British Government and the Japanese Government in the past 17 years, I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said this afternoon; but is it not important that we remember that, for former prisoners of war and their families, money can never compensate for what they endured in the wartime years? Should we not recognise that most of them believe that the Japanese Government should be paying the money, not the British Government, and that Japan's financial position now is very different from what it was at the time of the San Francisco agreement in 1951?

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to take full note of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. David Rendel: I welcome the fact that all members of families who were interned will receive the payment, and that there will not be just one payment per family. May I bring it to the attention of the Minister that it is in the nature of such families that many have not returned to Britain or may not live here? Will he assure me that where they are living will make no difference to whether they receive the payment?

Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is certainly the case.

Mr. Jim Murphy: In welcoming this good news, may I relate to the Minister my experience of only this morning? I spoke with four constituents of mine who are survivors of the far east prisoner of war camps. When I spoke about the announcement, it was telling that not one of them asked, "How much?". What was important for them was that the statement was taking place at all. While £10,000 may change the financial position of some of the survivors, my conversations with them reinforced for me the fact that what was important was that at last a Government of whatever political persuasion had recognised their unique suffering, and for that I thank the Minister.

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to accept what my hon. Friend has said and to recognise the quiet dignity with which


people have borne over many years the suffering that resulted from their captivity. We all know that money is no full recompense for that, but we have at least marked our recognition of what they went through.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to call every hon. Member who is standing. I will be helped if the questions are brief.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I thank the Minister and the Government for the statement. I, like the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), am the son of someone who was lucky enough not to be captured, but did serve in a far east theatre. May I ask for a couple of points of clarification? Will the Minister's colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office request that the money be repaid to the British taxpayers by the Japanese Government? Where someone is the surviving widow of a far east prisoner of war, will she still receive compensation even if she has remarried, perhaps after nursing her first husband for many years?

Dr. Moonie: It is not a matter of making a request to the Japanese Government. They are well aware of our views. They have been repeated many times. I am happy to say again that if someone has remarried following the death of her husband, she will still be eligible.

Mr. John Cryer: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the announcement and I hope that he accepts the congratulations of my constituents who are surviving POWs and their relatives. I have to say that the Japanese Government should be making the payments. Does my hon. Friend accept that on days such as this I realise how important it is to be a Labour Member of Parliament, because it has taken a Labour Government to make this announcement and make the payments?

Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and I recognise what he says on the subject.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As the daughter of a Japanese prisoner of war, may I on behalf of my mother and my constituents, particularly the civilian internees, thank the Government for the announcement? Will the Minister clarify whether the War Pensions Agency's records on pensioners will enable it to pay the £10,000 without their even asking for a claim form? May I double-check that the £10,000 will not be taken into account under the capital rules for benefits?

Dr. Moonie: As a point of amplification, I confirm the latter point. One of the reasons it has taken so long to make the announcement is that we have had to ensure that we get the regulations watertight.
On the hon. Lady's first point, clearly, not everyone will be registered with the War Pensions Agency. Although to some of us it might appear to be a simple form, many elderly people might require help to fill out what they regard as a complicated form. I am sure that many organisations are ready to give a hand to identify all those who are entitled to the payment and to ensure

that they receive help in filling out the necessary forms. We shall also ensure that additional staff are available at the War Pensions Agency to cope with the extra work.

Dr. George Turner: My hon. Friend the Minister will probably be aware that people from Norfolk were disproportionately represented among those imprisoned in Japan. I probably have met, know and represent disproportionately more former prisoners of war than any other Member. I therefore thank my hon. Friend wholeheartedly for this decision. However, given that the one thing that will be said almost universally about the decision is that it is late, will he ensure that, whatever computer hiccups there are, everything will be done so that, in the weeks to come, we do not have to apologise for any further delays? Will he ensure that, having made the right decision, it is followed through and payments follow rapidly?

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, but it will take a little time to make sure that the regulations are properly in place to allow us to implement our decision. However, we shall do that with all possible expedition.

Mr. David Heath: I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's announcement and thank him on behalf of my constituents, including Mr. Yerbury, who came to my surgery in Frome soon after I was elected and expressed to me in no uncertain terms just how bitterly the view that these prisoners had been ignored and perhaps actively misled by successive Governments was held.
I have one specific question. I very much welcome the extension of the provision to civilian prisoners of war, but do we have adequate records to ascertain the whereabouts of those of them who do not receive war pensions and are therefore much more difficult to trace?

Dr. Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has put his finger on a problem. We do not know where all these people are; it would be impossible for us to do so. Initiative will be required by the people involved or by their relatives and friends, who, I am sure, will know who might be eligible for the payments. As I said, we are happy to employ extra staff to deal with the matter and to ensure that all inquiries are properly answered. I am certain that the decision will be widely publicised, and we shall do everything that we can to ensure that everyone who is entitled to the payment receives it.

Mr. Desmond Browne: On behalf of my constituents—in particular, Brian Brown, James Miller and Hugh Irvine—I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the statement and congratulate the Government on the decision. Those constituents were former Japanese prisoners of war and they have campaigned for decades for this day; thankfully, they have lived to see it. However, will my hon. Friend take this early opportunity to lay to rest the speculation in today's


press that some of the money may be creamed off the top to pay the lawyers who have represented far east prisoners of war in litigation in Japan?

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the payments will be made to the individuals concerned and not to the lawyers.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for the announcement. Although he said that it can be only a token payment, it is more than a gesture; it is a recognition of the sacrifice that so many have made for us.
On a practical note, in the search for the former prisoners of war and their relatives, will special targeting be carried out, with the assistance of the Royal British Legion and other associations, of the nursing and residential homes where former prisoners of war and their relatives may now be?

Dr. Moonie: That is an excellent idea and we shall follow it up.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In expressing my appreciation of this thoroughly welcome announcement, may I ask to what extent Her Majesty's Government have been able to discuss the matter with the Governments and service authorities of India, Pakistan and Nepal, to identify potential recipients? People in those countries served the empire, shared the sacrifice and, as the Minister said, are equally entitled to the benefits.

Dr. Moonie: I am not sure of the exact mechanisms involved, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will

take steps to ensure that all those people in the categories that I mentioned receive the payments for which they are eligible.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In welcoming what the Minister said, I note that he referred to the appalling conditions in which far east prisoners of war were held. Will he confirm for the record that many thousands of people did not come back because they were deliberately executed, including several members of Her Majesty's Fleet Air Arm who were killed after the war had ended? Will he also confirm for the record that, as the late Lord Cheshire VC explained, the Japanese would have murdered all remaining prisoners of war in their captivity, but that that was pre-empted by the dropping of atom bombs? Will he also consider a small group of members of the British services who were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps? They have not been mentioned, but they underwent similar experiences and suffered similar privations.

Dr. Moonie: I recognise that other groups suffered. Today's announcement recognises the unique collective nature of what happened in the far east, as the hon. Gentleman's remarks graphically illustrate.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the payment will also apply to the widows of those who died in captivity before the end of the war. In dealing with the veterans of the Indian army who have properly been included in the statement, will he make it clear that it would be wholly unacceptable if members of the Indian army who deserted in captivity to join the Indian national army received the payment?

Dr. Moonie: I should point out that only a relatively small number of people who served in other armed forces are eligible for the payment. As for widows, we have tried to be as inclusive as possible.

Points of Order

Mrs. Ann Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I correct a comment that I made yesterday following the statement on floods? I am delighted to say that Yorkshire Electricity has assured me that it will not levy any charge on victims of the floods who have had to be reconnected. My constituents at Stockbridge should refuse to pay any future reconnection fees and should report such requests to the West Yorkshire police.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not totally out of order for a Member of the House to stand by your Chair and harangue you in the middle of Foreign Office questions, thereby disrupting a very important question on Iraq? For how long will that Member be banished? Will you make it plain that you will no longer stand for such bully-boy tactics?

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with the matter.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the forthcoming business, some hon. Members find the motion on the business of the House somewhat opaque. It would help the House enormously if you could give an idea of how business will be conducted. Irrespective of whether the House agrees to the business motion—I hope that it will not—do you propose that debates should be structured, or should different elements of the motions and the amendments be dealt with separately?

Mr. Speaker: I have been very good to the right hon. Gentleman—two of his amendments have been selected for consideration. I intend to make a statement that will explain the structure, which will be fair to all concerned and will, I think, satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That at today's sitting the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Programming of Bills and Deferred Divisions not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Eric Forth: This motion is yet another attempt by the Government to truncate debate on—arguably—one of the most important matters that has come before the House, perhaps in its history, but certainly for a very long time. It proposes to alter the balance between the Government, the Executive and the House of Commons. Given that, one would have thought that even this Government would want the House of Commons to have sufficient time to consider properly the matter in its totality, including the amendments to the motions, which you, Mr. Speaker, have kindly selected.
However, we find that the opposite is the truth. In what can only be a calculated insult to the House, the Government have had the gall to suggest that such vital matters, affecting, as they might if hon. Members agreed them, the very balance between the Executive and the House, can be disposed of at an arbitrary hour—in this case 10 o'clock. That strikes me as gratuitous and completely unnecessary—and, might I add, insulting.
That is even more true given that the Order Paper on Thursday and then yesterday revealed that the Government were to attempt to cut this business even shorter, by finishing it at 8 o'clock. That is notwithstanding the fact that we have had an important statement today, and therefore time is even shorter. That cannot be right. One would have thought that agreeing such radical and fundamental changes to Standing Orders, and therefore the relationship between the Executive and the House—and, in the matter of deferred Divisions, the basis on which the House has been used to debating and voting for many centuries—required proper time for consideration.
Under the motion, the House is asked to agree that justice can be done to such matters by 10 o'clock, even though we have started to consider them after 4 o'clock. Indeed, the situation is worse than that, because, subject to your guidance in due course, Mr. Speaker, the Government are suggesting that we debate all matters at once and then vote on them in a group after 10 o'clock. In other words, the House will not be able to consider its decision on one matter before it moves to another. That is unnecessary and highly irregular.
Surely it would have been appropriate, in this of all debates, to have given Members, as has happened in debates not just in this Parliament but in many previous Parliaments, proper and ample opportunity to deliberate these matters until whatever time we think appropriate, rather than presenting us with what can be described only as a guillotine on the ending of the traditional role of the House of Commons.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is particularly ironic that the Government should be seeking so to undermine


parliamentary democracy in the few days immediately after Guy Fawkes night? Nearly 400 years since the successful foiling of the previous attempt to damage this House, the Government are trying to blow up parliamentary traditions.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; with much greater elegance than I am ever able to muster, he has summarised the nature of the decisions before us. [Interruption.] Labour Members obviously find this amusing. The distressing thing is that they would, wouldn't they? Given what we have come to know as the collective contempt of Government Members for this House, its traditions and conventions, and more particularly for the role that Members of Parliament have assumed until now that they can play in holding the Government to account, it would appear that there is a remarkable similarity. The Government, in the guise of the Modernisation Committee—for this purpose the two are identical—have decided to assault the House of Commons.
As has become the custom in such cases—I regret to say this, with the Leader of the House in her place—there has not even been an attempt by the Government or anyone else to explain to the House why the motion is on the Order Paper, and why the Government believe that discussion of these vital issues, which touch on the most fundamental relationship between the House and the Government, must be truncated and limited as is proposed.
As usual, we are all at sea. We do not know the rationale behind the proposal. The assumption seems to have been made, as ever it is by the Government, that the House will meekly accept this outrageous attempt to limit us before we get to the substance of the matter, when the Government and the Modernisation Committee will attempt irrevocably to change the relationship—

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the normal practice has been that we would debate such matters, and orders would later be tabled for the House to decide on, having considered what the debate had produced? That will not happen today.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is yet another flaw in the proceedings. Neither the Government nor the so-called Modernisation Committee have any idea at this stage how far the House agrees with the thrust and the principle of what they are trying to do, Not for them an attempt to seek the views of the House, and in the light of those to present proposals to change Standing Orders. Instead, we are faced with a peremptory effort to change the principles and the subject of the matter, and rolled within that, an attempt to change Standing Orders.
Mr. Speaker, you have said kindly that you will guide us as to the procedures that will be followed—but if I may say so, even subject to that, I doubt very much whether we will be able to do justice to the issues before 10 pm. That should be a matter for the House to decide; it is not for the Government to say that we have from now until 10 o'clock to decide these matters.
The business motion that we are considering represents as good a summation as one could get of the contemptuous attitude with which the Government are

dealing with the matter. It is not good enough, and I shall seek to divide the House on the motion, so that hon. Members who are as unhappy as I am about it will be able to express their views on this attempt to gag the House even in such a vital matter.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I support the general remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Leader of the House to fulfil that role, as she well can and as she frequently has, and to serve the House by withdrawing the motion and allowing us to debate the general principles behind a number of very different issues.
It is possible that some Opposition Members are in favour of some of the Government's propositions and violently opposed to others. I hope that this will be a parliamentary occasion on which hon. Members on both sides will examine each proposal on its individual merits and decide whether it will advance the interests of Parliament to pass the motion.
The only sensible, logical and fair way of doing that is for the Leader of the House to allow us to have a general debate this afternoon on the principles proposed. After all, we do not have the state opening of Parliament until 6 December and we need not prorogue until 4 or 5 December. We have ample time for each of the orders to be tabled separately and for the House to concentrate on it, debate it and pass it or reject it.
The Leader of the House would be serving the House and fulfilling her historic role if she listened to this plea for common sense and logic, as I hope she will.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Sometimes in the House of Commons the language used seems to suggest that particular items of discussion are considered solely on a party basis. I therefore want to make my position clear. I have looked carefully at the wording of the motion and I am deeply disturbed that we should be proceeding with major changes, apparently on a timetabled motion. I am not quite clear why the Leader of the House has not chosen to introduce the business motion; presumably, she will comment at the end of the debate.
These are not small matters. They may be presented as a moving of the furniture and an alteration here and there. They may even be presented as modernisation, by those who basically do not approve of the close examination of legislation and somehow feel that whatever the Government say must automatically be right. Long acquaintance with Governments of all parties has taught me that Members are wise to examine carefully what is being presented to them—and not only in terms of whether it fits in with their individual ideas or with the ideas of their party, on which they accepted nomination. They should consider carefully whether what is being presented affects the interests of their constituents.
Timetable motions, however they are presented, reduce the time available to the House to debate major matters. It is not only a matter of convenience. Were I a cynic, I might say that the accident of the decision to have the debate today, when many Members might be expected to want to go elsewhere and to enjoy the no doubt abundant


hospitality of well known embassies, might have an effect on the attendance within the Chamber. I am sure, however, that that is not the case.
I have opposed timetable motions under many Governments, not only the present Government. I feel strongly that the Back-Bench Member has only one real weapon, and that is careful scrutiny. Back Benchers can be bought off occasionally with patronage; they can be encouraged and frightened. Occasionally they get themselves into positions which some of us would feel are slightly uncomfortable in relation to their masters and mistresses. However, they have the power to question what lies behind particular pieces of legislation. They can examine the use of particular words—the semantics that present major changes as minor changes, and present essential alterations as though they were methods of making life convenient for individual Members.
I am delighted to know that the proposals are being presented so that I may know in future more securely what my day will be like. That will be a tremendous improvement on the past 35 years. But I did not think that I was coming to Parliament to have my day secured. I rather thought that I was coming to this place to examine in considerable detail laws that carry sanctions against people's lives.
There are parts of the reports that make it clear what we are supposed to be doing in the House. Parliamentary draftsmen have spelt out the difference between the wording of laws and the wording of information leaflets. They have made it clear why Members must accept the responsibility of dealing with complex legislation, which in its terms and in its English leads them to experience difficulty, and to require explanation.
I say sincerely that I shall accept some of the suggestions that will be discussed today, while others I find unacceptable. However, they are major changes, not small alterations. They will have an enormous impact, and every Government will benefit from them. In due course, every Front-Bench team will want to agree them, irrespective of its political power and irrespective of where it comes from, or what it presents itself to the electorate as representing. That should be a warning signal to individual Members, and make them ask why suddenly such matters can be dismissed so quickly. Is it because awkward questions may be asked?
I support the strange old-fashioned idea that a lot of us are elected to the House to ask awkward questions and to get some fairly straight answers. My experience is that those who seek to curtail debate—whatever their reasons and however they express them—should be distrusted, if only mildly. We should treat them with affectionate respect, but we should also listen carefully to what they say. That is not simply a question of saying, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." Believe me, it is always wise for Back-Bench Members to beware of motions proposed by Front Benchers who argue that the proposals in the motion are for the convenience of Back Benchers.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You safeguard the interests of Back Benchers. Bearing in mind the opaque nature of the motion, would it have been appropriate for the Leader of the House, whose role is to represent the interests of all Members of the House, to have begun with an explanation of that motion? That would have made it clear where

we stand. Alternatively, Sir, bearing in mind the fact that you announced that you intended to make a statement, would it be appropriate for you to say, on behalf of the House, how you believe that those important questions, which are about the fundamental nature of the House, should be dealt with? The decisions that we take today will be binding.

Mr. Speaker: The answer is no.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I, too, oppose the motion. First, although it is deplorable for any debate to be curtailed, it is particularly deplorable and appalling for debate on a motion that will curtail our rights to be curtailed. Those important rights—rights of debate and of assent to legislation—are central to our work.
Secondly, the proposed changes are fundamental. In essence, they, and in particular the proposal to defer Divisions, will change the parliamentary week. They could turn us into a one-day-a-week Parliament.
Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, the changes will be convenient for Ministers of either political complexion, and may be convenient for some hon. Members, but they will be irreversible, and should therefore be debated at greater length.
If the motion is agreed to, we shall bury one of the principles of our democracy tonight. If we are to do that, we should at least do it with some thought, without curtailment and with a certain amount of dignity. I very much regret that a procedural change designed to stifle debate should itself be stifled by a guillotine motion. I join my hon. Friends in asking the Leader of the House: why the rush? There is no other urgent business on the Order Paper, and there is plenty of time before the end of the Session. Big issues are at stake on programming motions and deferring Divisions. If the Leader of the House is so keen to have a vote by the 10 pm deadline tonight, why do we not have a longer debate, and why does she not try out the proposals? We could defer the Division until tomorrow, which would allow us to debate the motion at greater length.

Mr. Ian Pearson: I shall be brief. I share many of the concerns that have been expressed.
I have always supported the sensible programming of Bills, and although I have some concerns about the orders, Parliament should take that step. I have many more concerns about the proposal to defer voting.
In many ways, the proposals fundamentally alter my terms and conditions of employment. I was sent here to do a job, and it has been put to me that in many ways, the proposals will make my job easier. But I was not elected to have an easy job; I was elected to scrutinise legislation. When I ask the fundamental questions—whether the proposals will make the business of Government easier, and whether they will make it more difficult to scrutinise legislation—I have to answer yes to both. Therefore, it is imprudent of the Government—

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the


hon. Gentleman, whose contribution the House is listening to with interest, but I hope that you have noticed that the hon. Member speaking is incorrectly recorded on the monitor as being the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We did not need that explanation. It is fairly obvious to all of us. We all know who we are.

Mr. Pearson: I certainly know who I am, and I am prepared to say what I believe on the matter before us, even though it might not be acceptable to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I was not put here to have an easy job; I was put here to scrutinise the Government, and I believe in doing that. It is imprudent for the Government to timetable a motion on a fundamental change to my terms and conditions of employment that will make life easier for Government and for Back Benchers, but which will produce a result which is far worse for democracy. Therefore I shall vote against the timetable motion.

Sir Peter Emery: I rise to make two important points. The Modernisation Committee has not seen, let alone discussed, the orders on the Order Paper. The principles behind them have appeared in reports, but when it comes to the detail of how the orders will apply, they may well represent a different view and approach, which the House might wish to consider and debate.

Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the words before us today are the Government's interpretation of what the Modernisation Committee wanted to say?

Sir Peter Emery: I do not know if "wanted to say" is right. The words are the Government's words, interpreting the reports which have been before the House for some time. In as detailed a matter as this, I should have expected the method by which the alterations would be applied to have come before the Committee, which has been dealing with the matter for some months, so that it could have seen the way in which the Government wanted matters to operate in the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does not that reinforce my plea to the Leader of the House that we should debate the principles this afternoon, and the motions should be tabled at a later date?

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to have given way to my hon. Friend, but he has stolen the last line of my speech.
My second point is that it is most unusual for the person who leads for the Opposition on the Modernisation Committee to come forward with a detailed Opposition paper on the recommendations under consideration. That report is a detailed outline by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) of how the procedures might better be applied. I urge all hon. Members to read the report; it will not take more than a few minutes. It suggests a different pattern and sets

out a slightly different view of the final proposal, which was agreed only by the Government and the Liberal Democrats; Conservative members of the Committee opposed it.

Helen Jackson: I do not want to continue a Modernisation Committee discussion, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the principle of better timetabling in the House has been the subject of numerous debates? Was not it the view of the Modernisation Committee that the place to discuss the important matter that we are considering today was the Chamber, so that the whole House could make a decision by the end of the Session? That was the wish of the whole Committee, and we are realising it today.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Lady is an assiduous member of the Modernisation Committee, and has most ably contributed several views, which are not always popular with her party. Her comments reinforce those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). She is right to say that the Modernisation Committee believes that the changes should be presented by the end of the Session so that they can apply next Session. However, that does not mean that we have to do it all in a rush tonight; after all, the Queen's Speech will not take place next week. We are sent away Friday after Friday; the Government therefore do not have so much business that they cannot hold a debate on the matter, hear the views of the House, consider them and present recommendations.
I am most critical of one matter. I believe that there are ways in which one should assist in getting measures through the House, but every aspect of a Bill should be considered in Committee. That does not often happen; it should happen far more. For a long time I have argued that when timetabling, we should ensure that every part of a Bill is considered. However, that point is not made in any of the orders. If it is not in order to ensure that a Committee considers every aspect of a Bill, I wonder whether it is right to proceed with the motion that we are considering, because it will curtail the sort of discussion that the House has the right to expect the Leader of the House to provide for our convenience. Although the Leader of the House is a Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, whose expertise in procedural matters is widely acknowledged in the House, but I must direct his attention to the fact that the contents of the motion relate not to whether we should proceed but to whether the correct amount of time has been allowed.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that you interrupted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you remind me of what I am trying to say. I am obviously not saying it well enough, and I need much longer, to ensure that I do.
The timetabling that the motion suggests is unfair to the ordinary Back-Bench Member. The duty of the Leader of the House to the House means that she must always be fair to hon. Members from all parties, not only to the Government. I perceive no reason—if there is a reason, perhaps the Leader of the House will provide it—for not proceeding with a general debate on the two reports, with reference to a third. Any thoughts that arise from those could be put forward in a new motion to the House,


which would alter Standing Orders. All that can be done before we rise. We have the time. Why will the Leader of the House not consider that appeal? I hope that from the noise that greets me when I sit down, she will realise how strongly the House feels about it.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Glenda Jackson: I have listened with no small interest to the contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House in this short debate. I confess to a sense of stupefaction at what I have heard. The image of the Chamber that has been presented is in marked contrast to my practical experience of the Chamber during the years that I have been a Member.
I acknowledge that my experience of this place is not as long as, for example, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who posited the possibility that the debate had been introduced because there was an overwhelming desire among the majority of Members to be the guests of friendly embassies, but she will be aware of at least two occasions, which I experienced, when debate in the Chamber was kept deliberately long in order that the majority of Members would not be distracted from watching television screens during an important football match. On another occasion, a debate was kept deliberately long to facilitate some dinner organised by Her Majesty's Opposition to celebrate someone who requires no kind of celebration at all. The basic argument that we have heard is that the Chamber's overriding business is to scrutinise the Executive—would that it did.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Lady has missed the point. We are asking for the same treatment that the Government and the Leader of the House will give to the Liaison Committee report on Thursday. It will be debated in principle on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Presumably, at a later date, there will be a proper opportunity—there certainly should be—to vote on the report's specific recommendations. We are asking for a debate in principle on the Modernisation Committee report's far-reaching proposals—some of which might be acceptable, some of which will not—so that the House can come to a general view and then specifically debate each order when it is laid.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I regret to say that I disagree. He has markedly failed to understand my point. He is arguing, as the majority of Members consistently do, that longevity equates with acuity. It does not. As I am sure he is aware, it is simply not the case that, via these proposals, a debate in the Chamber will be in any way curtailed. The Chamber will be allowed—

Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: May I finish the point? I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Chamber will be entirely capable of debating any issue until 4, 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning if that is its wish. There is no basic change in that respect. If Members

genuinely wish to hold the Executive—this or any other Executive—to account, surely we should be looking for much longer and more detailed Question Times and the shortening of Back-Bench speeches. If Members cannot say what they wish to say within 10 minutes, they have little to say.

Mr. Redwood: In that case, can the hon. Lady explain how modernising has so far helped us to hold the Executive to account? We have had a halving of the number of Prime Minister's Question Times, no statement on Biarritz and no statement on the fuel protests because Parliament was on an extended holiday. How does that help us to hold the Executive to account?

Ms Jackson: By failing to listen to what anyone else says and being more concerned with producing some party political soundbite, the right hon. Gentleman has yet again fallen into the terrible trap that reduces the respect that my constituents believe they should be able to have for the Chamber. What is proposed by the Modernisation Committee is, despite the outrage that has emanated in the Chamber, minor in the extreme. What is not minor is what I believe to be serious inroads into the democratic remit of this place in relation to those who send us here to represent them. What happens in the Chamber, certainly as far as my constituents are concerned, is becoming increasingly irrelevant because of the games that are played in it—games that have nothing whatever to do with genuine scrutiny of legislation, and do virtually nothing to enable our constituents' concerns to be represented at a time when they wish them to be.
Why is there such a vast lobby out there? Why have we seen people organising themselves in various ways? Because this Chamber—via its Standing Orders, which were created by Members for a different age and, in the main, for an exclusively male representation—does not meet the needs of our constituents, and cannot do so until we begin to examine those Standing Orders in detail and argue for modernisation.

Mr. John Redwood: I support the six right hon. and hon. Members who have so far spoken against the imposition of the guillotine. They have expressed very different political opinions, they have spoken in different tones of voice, and they have made different kinds of plea to the Leader of the House.
I find it sad that the Leader of the House is not listening, and has made no statement about why she wishes to crash on with the business in this thoroughly undemocratic way. She does not even listen to the sensible advice of her hon. Friends, let alone Opposition Members who have a passion for Parliament similar to that of many Labour Members who are offended by the proposal.
The Government have already gained the all-comers record for the imposition of the guillotine. Guillotines are always very contentious. When they were imposed by Conservative Governments, there were times when some of us felt uncomfortable about that; but Conservative Governments imposed nothing like the number—with nothing like the ruthlessness and consistency—imposed by this miserable Government so far.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to give the House incorrect information. It is not true that the present Government hold the record for guillotines; it is held by the Conservative party.

Mr. Redwood: If the right hon. Lady looks at the annual rates, she will see that—as she well knows—the Government hold the all-comers record by a mile. It was foolish of her to try to make that point.

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to qualify his statement by giving the actual figures?

Mr. Redwood: They are on the record in Hansard, having been given in an earlier debate. I shall not delay the House by putting them all on the record again—although my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is now looking for them in the text, may well return to them himself. However, I well remember the burden of the argument, and the evidence of the figures is overwhelming—as the hon. Lady will find if she cares to check them.
We are engaging in an important set of debates, or perhaps a single debate, on the big issue of how the House of Commons is to hold the Government to account.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Perhaps I can assist my right hon. Friend by answering the point made by the Leader of the House. Between 1946 and 1949, under Labour, there were three timetabled Bills; between 1951 and 1963, there were 15; between 1966 and 1970, under Mr. Wilson, there were five; under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), there were five; under the subsequent Governments of Wilson and Lord Callaghan, there were 12; under Lady Thatcher, there were 34; under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), there were 17; and under the present Prime Minister, between 1997 and 2000, there have been 34.

Mr. Redwood: I hope that the Leader of the House will now withdraw what she said. I did indeed remember correctly, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
This is symptomatic of how the House is treated by the present Government. Not only do Ministers not want to come here and make statements; not only do they not want to come here and answer questions; but when they do come here, they attempt to mislead the House in an appalling way. The only statements that they wish to make are those that will gain cross-party support, or show them in a good light.
This place is here to hold the Executive to account. How can we do that this afternoon and this evening if major procedural changes are to be rushed through, and if we cannot even have an explanation of why time is so limited that the debate must be truncated?

Mr. Bercow: Given that the Order Paper contains no fewer than 10 specific proposals from the Government and 11 amendments tabled by other right hon. and hon. Members, does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is essential for the public to understand that the Leader of

the House thinks it appropriate that, on average, each of those matters should receive approximately a quarter of an hour of the House's attention?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I fear that several big issues will receive no attention whatsoever because the Leader of the House is proposing to the House that debate should take place in a dreadful way.
Why are we short of time today? We had 13 weeks off, but when the Opposition asked for the House to be recalled to discuss important matters, we were denied the opportunity to do our job in September or early October. We have now been sitting for two weeks, but the business does not often stagger through to 10 o'clock because it is not of great interest to many right hon. and hon. Members, especially those on the Government Benches. We have now been told that we are so short of that precious commodity, time, that our debate has to be steamrollered.
Conservative Members and, I believe, some Labour Members, think that this matter is being deliberately steamrollered on a busy news day outside this place. The Government want to make their life easier and do not want difficult questions to be asked, and certainly have no intention of answering them. They do not want to find time to debate legislation in detail because so much of it is drafted so appallingly badly that they know it would not stand up to proper scrutiny.
The Government are trying to push the matter through on a day when the United States of America is busy electing the most powerful man in the world and an awful lot of briefing is taking place on what will be in the pre-Budget statement tomorrow—which, of course, should be kept quiet until the Chancellor makes his speech to the House. Once again, the Government are showing contempt for the House by briefing the press and speaking to journalists long before Members of Parliament.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: A moment ago, my right hon. Friend referred to bad drafting. Is he aware that the motion that we are debating is badly drafted? A careful reading makes it clear that if our current debate goes on until after 10 o'clock, it will not be possible for us to vote on the following two motions, which will be dropped.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for the important point made by my hon. Friend. If the timetable motion is passed tonight, followed by that on the business of the House, Parliament will get an unflattering name for itself. Historians and the British people have a habit of giving Parliaments names, so we have had the Merciless Parliament, the Addled Parliament and the Parliament of the Saints—which one could hardly call this Parliament. I fear that this Parliament will go down in history as the Useless Parliament without backbone, thanks to the reluctance of so many Government Members to hold the Executive to account and stand up against the guillotine tonight. All that they seem to want is to do their knitting at the base of guillotine as the tumbrel falls.
The silence of the babes on this matter is eerie, and it is about time that they started to represent the views of their constituents to the Government, instead of just


representing the Government to their constituents. They could start tonight by speaking out in favour of proper parliamentary procedure.

Ms Julia Drown: My constituents tell me that they find this place embarrassing. They find contributions such as those of the right hon. Gentleman the most embarrassing, as they are the yah-boo of this place. One reason that my constituents sent me here is that they want Parliament modernised and changed. They want the Executive to be held to account and they want legislation to be properly scrutinised. I want that to happen, but I do not see it happening under current procedures. Today, we are debating a way of improving that.

Mr. Redwood: I look forward to the hon. Lady joining us in the Division Lobby, should there be a Division on this matter. She must accept that there cannot be proper accountability if guillotines are imposed on every piece of business and votes are divorced from the argument. Everyone outside knows that when a discussion or debate takes place, the issue is put to the vote, and voted on then and there. One does not invite people who were never part of that debate to come in up to a week later to vote on the matter. However, the House is being asked to do that, and the motion is designed to strengthen the power of the Executive, not the House.
Of course, people out there want change. They want a Parliament of people who speak up for their rights and they want Members of Parliament who tell the Government that they are wrong on the fuel tax, the Budget and how they are trying to run the country.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel at all guilty about the night on which the Conservative party forced through 17 orders on the poll tax—which consisted of 32 pages on matters including imprisonment and other things—when there was only an hour and a half to debate all those orders?

Mr. Redwood: I think that that was a mistake, and, eventually, the previous Government saw that it was a mistake. Eventually, the previous Government listened to public opinion and removed that tax. If the hon. Gentleman would like to look at the record, he will see that I was the Minister who was given the rotten task of removing that tax and introducing one that was a bit more palatable. It is a very good example of why Parliament should not have been sidelined. That Government should have listened then, when the voices were very clear. This Government should now listen to the fuel protesters and to all the other members of the public who dislike what the Government are doing in health and education and in the Budget.
Above all, however, will Labour Members join us today in demanding proper scrutiny and discussion, and tell the Leader of the House that she speaks for no one but the Government in trying to stifle debate and stop proper voting?

Mr. Doug Henderson: I did not plan on speaking in the debate, until the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke. If I

remember correctly, when he was the Government spokesman on the poll tax, I was an Opposition local government spokesman and, therefore, had to endure the same procedures that he had to endure. I am sure that members of the public watching this debate who are familiar with the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is nothing quite like the zeal of the convert.
I remember when the right hon. Gentleman was pushing and prodding through legislation, and he and I had the type of private chats that spokespeople have. He would say, "I have to do this because there is no other way that we can get the business through." He knows how Governments work.

Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that, when I was a Minister, I asked the shadow spokesmen how they would like to organise the time? I was always very keen that the Opposition had sufficient time to deal with the two or three big issues that mattered most to them. Will he confirm that that is so?

Mr. Henderson: I can confirm that the right hon. Gentleman used to consult Opposition spokespeople on statements that he was about to make to the House, and I thank him for doing that. However, he was not his own man, as his Whips sometimes had other ideas about how business should be conducted, and his view did not always prevail. The Whips often wanted to timetable business, because they recognised that the Government had to get their business through.
I am speaking in this debate not as an apologist for the Government, but as someone who has constituents to represent. My constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), would laugh us out of court if they saw this debate, in which some hon. Members seem to be saying that the future of democracy depends on how and when we do our business. Consumers do not judge cars on the basis of when they were made or the circumstances in which they were made, and people do not judge lawyers on the basis of when they gave advice or the circumstances in which they gave it. People, and consumers, care about results.
I believe that the public hold this place in disrepute more than ever before in my lifetime, largely because of the way in which we conduct our affairs. The public want decisions to be taken well and Government legislation to be scrutinised. I think that any British citizen would tell us, however, that the best way of scrutinising legislation is not to use 650-plus people, but to use small groups of people to examine the detail, to cross the t's and dot the i's. That belief is based on their experience of life—the way in which they work, participate in social clubs and become involved in charities.
The public are far too wise to believe that relying on set-piece speeches in the Chamber that last halfway through the night is a sensible way of conducting parliamentary affairs. They are far too wise to believe that there should be seven or eight Divisions when one would be enough to clarify the issue. I believe that the public are looking for the results of our action to improve health, education and other services, and that, at the next general election, they will be judging all of us on those results. It surely makes sense for us to have procedures that lead to good decisions being made as efficiently and effectively as possible.
I shall support the guillotine motion. I have said all I wanted to say, but I should like to do hon. Members the courtesy of allowing them to intervene.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he not realise that the logic of what he is saying is that the ability of hon. Members to speak for their constituencies would be reduced to a series of administrative decisions? Indeed, one way in which we could produce very rapid decisions with apparently a certain amount of consultation would be to have us all e-mail our views and then to collate the result. Does he not realise that one of his privileges here is to be able to speak openly? Although many people may deeply disapprove of hon. Members expressing views that are not regurgitated from their Front Bench, that is fundamentally what Parliament is about.

Mr. Henderson: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend about the fundamentals of Parliament; I am arguing about how it is done. I do not think that it takes 20 minutes to make a point. It is possible to make a point in two or three minutes, as many other Parliaments around the world require. Quite frankly, to be flippant and derisory about e-mail is to live in the last century. The business community does not spend endless hours at face-to-face meetings dealing with detail. Most people deal with the principles face to face and leave the detail to e-mail. We may have to involve e-mails in Committees in future. I do not know about that, but I would not be derisory about them.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not appreciate that although some people will have the privilege of serving on a Committee and examining legislation in detail and at length—but even that is likely to be programmed—others, for whatever reason, will not be selected to serve on that Committee? We, as Back Benchers, have a responsibility to examine legislation in detail, if we so wish and if we have responsibilities as constituency Members of Parliament representing particular interests. We should not be denied that.

Mr. Henderson: Of course I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but when the opportunity arises on Report or whenever for an hon. Member to make an observation on a Committee recommendation that he or she has not been part of, it should be expressed succinctly at a reasonable hour and we should vote on it at a reasonable hour. That is what the public would expect.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he realise that we are being asked to vote on a motion that the public would find perverse as it says that we should vote at 10 o'clock regardless of where the discussion has reached and whether or not we have had an informed debate or reached the end of business? Does he really support the idea of a guillotine on our procedures?

Mr. Henderson: The public, like many right hon. and hon. Members, would find the wording of the motion

rather strange, but they would expect us to be able to discuss it in a set time, to allow various points of view to be expressed and for the House to reach a decision. I believe that if we cannot do that in four or five hours tonight, we will never do it. Not everyone who wishes to continue the debate after 10 o'clock tonight wishes to extend it in order to demoralise those who seek change and encourage them to go to embassy parties a little earlier. I am not saying that every hon. Member who seeks an extension of the debate is motivated by that, but those of us who have been here a little while know that an awful lot of them are.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was correct in saying that this Labour Government have imposed more guillotines than any other Government since the war. In fact, annexe C to the Select Committee report indicates that there have been 36 guillotines, 18 of them having been agreed between Front Benches and 18 having been imposed by the Government. Of course, the report was written before the Government got into their full stride and before the end of July, since when there have been at least another two.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his remarks, but he has said something very important and I am grateful to him for placing it clearly on the record. He makes no distinction—and it is a perfectly legitimate point—between programme motions that have been agreed across the House for the convenience of scheduling proper debate and guillotines that have been imposed by the Government. It is important that we recognise that he has made that point.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for clarifying her position. The fact remains that the Government have imposed more than 20 guillotines, in addition to, as she and I agree, guillotines agreed between the Front Benches. We have rehearsed the arguments about guillotines over many years. I lived through 34 guillotines during the Thatcher years—but that was 11 years. I lived through 17 guillotines during the Major years, and have since lived through more than 20 during the Blair years.
To curtail freedom of expression used to be considered one of the greatest offences against parliamentary practice. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, if this House stood for anything, it was for the right to stand up and speak, no matter how lonely that task might be, for one's constituents or for one's country. That is an important consideration. The House can justify itself to the outside world in no other way.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shepherd: Not for the moment.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) spoke true when she said that the House is in crisis. No one believes that Members of Parliament have any role. As I go around my constituency, I encounter, as do other hon. Members, business men and constituents who ask what is the point of us. "You never change anything the Government say", they tell me.
We have reached the stage, in this modern world, in which Governments may talk directly to the nation. Traditionally, the nation responded through its elected representatives, but we are no longer a House of representatives in any true sense. In fact, those elected here are impatient to support their Government. That, ultimately, is why we have a motion before us that will ensure that we guillotine everything. There lies the essence of what has gone wrong with the House. No one knows how to talk back to the Government. We are all, in a sense, bought placepeople.
I recognise the role and importance of party, but surely some importance must be attached to being ourselves and standing up for what we believe. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate was right in one sense. I have no problem with the hours at which the House sits. The motion before us is incomprehensible to almost anyone; it was probably written by someone with a PhD from the London School of Economics. I doubt whether many hon. Members have actually troubled to read it from beginning to end.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the business motion? I hope that he will not anticipate what he might say if he catches my eye later on the substantive motion.

Mr. Shepherd: Of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that this outrageous guillotine is inappropriate because of the nature of the business that it would guillotine. That must require some discussion of the length and complexity of that business. That must be a fair point.
The motion is inexplicable, and we have, indeed, had no explanation of it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) have made the important point that this debate is the only one in which we may discuss the principles—if one can call them that—set out in the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, "Programming of Legislation and the Timing of Votes". We shall come later to the substance of what is a change to our Standing Orders.
No one had seen the motions before last week. Some principles had been enunciated in the report, but the proposals were never put before the Modernisation Committee in the form before us now. Nor were they referred to the Select Committee on Procedure so that it might deliberate on whether they provided an appropriate way to achieve an end.
We need time to debate many issues. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) was very concerned about our sitting hours. Did the Modernisation Committee discuss those? Does the issue appear in the report? Is it the way to solve the problem?
Essentially, this—the business that we are being denied the opportunity to discuss fully within the terms of this motion—is a bluff. We never looked into whether, in this modern world, the House could sit at 9 am and rise at 7.30 pm. We never looked at the rhythm of the parliamentary year. Why? All those matters have been discussed long ago. If we look at the Crossman diaries, which were circulated to all the Committee members, we can see where the power lies in this matter—it lies in the Cabinet. So, create a diversion and grab something while one is at it.
I am convinced that this proposal will mean the aggrandisement of Government on a scale that is unacceptable to the House, or should be. It is saying, "We shall get our business." That rules out the views of individual Members, as the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) said, and of the hundreds of others who have served in the House in the years that I have been here. The Government should not always get—

Mrs. Fitzsimons: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the final verdict is in the Lobby? That is the most powerful way to express how one feels.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady forgets our traditions. Our process has never been merely a question of x divided by 2 + 1; it is the process by which one gets there. The Opposition, or those who oppose the might and weight of a Government's argument, must be allowed to make their case. The hon. Lady, who will doubtless support the timetable motion, asks, "Why have a debate? We have just announced our policy. We can determine the matter in the Lobby." That is essentially what is behind all such arguments. We are asking the outside world to listen to these arguments. When we speak, we are meant to be the people's elected representatives.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not the essential difference between the two sides of the House the fact that far too many Labour Members think that they were elected to support the Government, not to represent their constituents?

Mr. Shepherd: To be fair, I have been in enough Parliaments in which that could have been said of Government Members of whatever party.
This is meant to be a House of Commons debate about us as Members of Parliament. I am trying to point out that this guillotining of a debate on a fundamental principle, without allowing the House first properly to discuss that principle, is wrong. It is as simple as that. The Committee did not consider whether the House could meet at 9 am or 10 am and rise at 7 pm or 7.30 pm, without the need to impose such guillotines.
Let us remember what is behind this guillotine on a motion to guillotine for ever—albeit initially only for the next Session. It is meant to assure the Government that they own the House in the most positive way.

Mr. Clive Soley: To put the record straight, I spent 18 years practising what the hon. Gentleman claims is a good method. It fails because we play with time in this place, which brings the House into disrepute. The proposal before the House is a way to improve the quality of legislation and of not legislating in the middle of the night. That is what it is about and that is what we should get on with.

Mr. Shepherd: That failure is no reason to insist on how another Opposition should conduct their business, but that is the conceit behind the proposal. Now, Governments tell Oppositions how they should perform their job. That is outrageous, and yet the outrageousness marches through the business motion, and through the next motion on the programming of Bills.
How do we discuss in detail these individual parts that are the jigsaw that makes up the totality of the absoluteness of the Government's control over this


House? In truth, the House is nothing but an instrument of the Executive as long as we do not pause to ask why Labour Back Benchers could not have insisted that sitting hours were a reasonable matter for consideration by the Modernisation Committee—whose Chairman, the Leader of the House, is a member of the Cabinet—and should be in the proposal before us, and further insisted that the Committee should examine why the House cannot sit.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate made a fair point, which is appreciated by many Conservative Members, that the House will seem dead to the outside world if it discusses business at 10 pm, 11 pm, midnight or 1 am. We want to be vital contributors to the arguments in the country. This proposal does nothing to meet that need. It ensures only that our debates will take place at the traditional times—perhaps starting at 5 or 6 pm.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has pointed out that we are putting the House into the hands of the Government. Are not Governments—whoever is in power—resistant to changes in hours, because Ministers cannot be in the Chamber in the morning? That is why the House cannot sit in the morning. The Government and the Cabinet resist changes that some Members might find convenient.

Mr. Shepherd: That is why I drew the attention of the House to the Crossman diaries—the entry to which I referred is that for Thursday 17 November 1976. Cabinets oppose such changes. However, Ministers are in the House at an early hour. They have to take Bills through Standing Committees and answer Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. It would liberate the House if we could all go out and make our party political speeches after 8 o'clock. It would enable Opposition Front Benchers to do so.
Until this Session, the Prime Minister voted extremely casually—in only 5 per cent. of the votes. He is now up to 10 per cent. No Prime Minister has either attended the House so rarely or voted so little. That is also true of Ministers, who expect their measures to be voted through by Back Benchers—such as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate—at 10 or 11 o'clock at night. That is what we have come to. So confident are they—so assured in their hold over those elected to the Chamber—that Back Benchers will do almost anything, Ministers do not have to give any time to such matters.
The matter is all in the Crossman diaries—what goes around comes around. Such matters are repeated time and again, but never so much as under the Labour Government. In Opposition, Labour Members vigorously criticised the Conservative use of guillotines—I agreed with the Labour Back Benchers who did so—but the Labour Government now say that was all a terrible waste of time because they are in government and they must use the guillotine as often as they want.
The assumptions in the report—we will not have the opportunity to consider it now—are extraordinary: the Government must get their business. What new constitutional principle do the Government propose by that? If the House believes that is right for the country, we must accept that principle; but if the House believes

that it is wrong for the country, we must reject it. That is the most basic assertion of the representative functions of the House, but we are setting it aside.

Mr. Pike: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. Does he agree that the whole purpose of today's motions is to move away from the use of the guillotine and towards sensible programming? That will ensure better scrutiny of legislation. That is why we are holding the debate.

Mr. Shepherd: The distinguished hon. Gentleman is a member of the Modernisation Committee. The only evidence offered to us on the supposed programming of Bills was mixed. It is set out in an appendix written by the Clerk. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, even when such programming was agreed between Members of the Front Benches, we did not discuss all parts of a Bill.
The debates on the poll tax offer a powerful and instructive example. Individual Members on both sides of the House took the opportunity—and had the time—to set out why the tax was defective and could not be borne. That began to turn the tide of opinion in the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, he eventually had to ameliorate the legislation under another Prime Minister. Do not doubt the importance of holding in the hands of the House the ability to check Governments. However impatient we are, if business were conducted during the day, most of us would not regret being here for an extra half hour or hour. There would not then be the need to impose guillotines. I hope that the new Labour hon. Ladies and Gentlemen are not fooled by this device of guillotining everything.
A distinguished Leader of the House, now Lord Biffen, when confronted with the precursors to the Jopling proposals said, from where the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), is sitting now:
All Governments are tomorrow's possible Opposition.—[Official Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1088.]
As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the hon. Member for Dudley, South said, that is the truth of the situation. Do not deny that right.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument up to this point has been that Back Benchers must be assured that they will have the time to hold whatever Government are in power to account. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is simply not the case that the present structures of the House afford that opportunity to every Back Bencher. If we are genuine about affording to Back Benchers of whichever party the opportunity to hold the Executive to account, we must consider structures that will afford that opportunity to all Back Benchers. They certainly do not do so at the moment. Unless the Speaker chooses to limit speeches to either 10 or 15 minutes, the majority of debating time in the Chamber is taken up by the most asinine, childish debate, usually rooted in empty party political badinage, which has nothing to do with scrutiny and not only brings this place into disrepute, but is contemptuous of the people who sent us here to represent them.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady is talking about Second Reading. We are talking about Report stage. The hon. Lady does not give evidence that she has even troubled


to read the report that is before the House. Annexe C deals with what has happened to what we call agreed guillotines as opposed to imposed guillotines. If she had troubled to read that, she would know that her analysis is not borne out. The evidence is not there to support her contention.

Ms Jackson: My analysis was not of the report, which I have read: my analysis was of the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not see how, by guillotining absolutely everything, the hon. Lady achieves what we are arguing for on this side of the House.

Mr. Redwood: The great weakness in the hon. Lady's argument is that if everything is guillotined, a small group of trusties who support any Government can come in and take up practically all the time available for debate and prevent independent-minded Back Benchers on either side from getting their views across. That is what we object to.

Mr. Shepherd: That is the fundamental argument. I am not rehearsing all the arguments, I am talking about the guillotine.

Helen Jackson: I appreciate the fervour with which the hon. Gentleman regularly talks to the House about guillotines, but does he agree that he is making a blinkered refusal to recognise the difference between the old-fashioned guillotine, which stops debate on a Bill, and the new modern approach to programming legislation, which is fully supported by the Hansard Society and many other Parliaments around the world? The new approach has at its heart the need to discuss and scrutinise Government Bills thoroughly. Such a distinction exists and, by basing his argument on the assumption that there is no distinction, the hon. Gentleman loses the whole point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention was far too long, but it illustrates that we are becoming much more involved in the substance of the motions to come. I realise that this motion cannot be entirely divorced from the others, but the hon. Gentleman has had some scope to develop his argument. We should not have too much more debate on the substance, given that the House has yet to reach a decision on when it will tackle the other motions.

Mr. Shepherd: I absolutely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, this is a guillotine motion and the issue is whether we shall have the time to discuss the substantive issues. The Modernisation Committee's report examined whether guillotine motions allow for full consideration of all the constituent parts. It considered the programmes motions on the Northern Ireland Bill and the Transport Bill. About the Transport Bill, it said:
42 groups of amendments were selected by the Chair; 11 of them were debated, but 31 (of which 4 consisted of minor and drafting amendments) were not reached.
The belief that one can fix a timetable that is necessarily appropriate means that we do not discuss legislation. That is now done by the other place, which is the working part of our constitution. We have become the dignified part of the constitution.
A Cabinet Minister tabled a motion that proposes fundamental changes to the Standing Orders of the House in the hope that it will fulfil the half-baked idea that a

fixed programme will get people home at 10 o'clock. However, that will make the House more and more irrelevant and that is why this debate is so timely.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we vote for a guillotine on such extraordinarily important matters, we shall not be able to discuss sitting hours or what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) believes is the abuse and misuse of Question Time? We will not be able to discuss those points, because we will not have the time.

Mr. Shepherd: I am only too conscious of that point. I regret that my speech has already lasted 25 minutes, but the fact is that more Members have attended this debate than any other on a procedural matter. That suggests to me that many of them wish to speak.
I know full well what will happen, because I have served in many Parliaments. Therefore, I put the hypothesis to the Leader of the House—a Cabinet member—that if we discuss the procedural motion until 10 o'clock, the attitude will be, "Go hang the debate on the substantive matter. We'll just pass it on the nod." People will then say, "You see just how ridiculous the House of Commons is."

Mr. Forth: It might help my hon. Friend if I inform him that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the Government Deputy Chief Whip, is hovering by the Speaker's Chair and that he is on the point of asking for a closure motion. The Government might not even allow us a proper amount of time to finish this debate.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not know what the Deputy Chief Whip will do, so I shall not consider that point.
As I understand the Order Paper, the business of the House may be discussed until any hour. However, if we discuss this motion until 10 o'clock, we shall not be able to discuss the motions that the Government so desperately want.

Mr. Tyrie: To reiterate a point that I made earlier, if this debate goes beyond 10 o'clock, the House will not have an opportunity to vote on the motions on the programming of Bills and on deferred Divisions. The business will therefore fall.

Mr. Shepherd: I would have loved the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire to have been taken on board. There should have been a debate on the principles that lie behind the motions and on the report itself. The Government should have made their proposals after such a debate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want to make a brief contribution, not only because I care about the House, but because I am also a member of the Modernisation Committee and as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) knows, I am happy to support some of the proposed changes to Standing Orders. However, I want the House, and the Leader of the House in particular, to know that I think that the Government's handling of the matter is totally unacceptable.
I share the view expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) who, picking up on remarks made by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), said that we should debate the general principles and issues contained in the Modernisation Committee's report as it relates to programming, the establishment of business sub-committees and, of course, deferred Divisions.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is it not the case that the Leader of House could help the House enormously if, when my hon. Friend finishes his speech, she accepted the principle that has been raised by so many hon. Members?

Mr. Winterton: As an eternal optimist and a believer in democracy, I would—to use a most unparliamentary phrase—love the right hon. Lady to do just that. She has it within her discretion and power to heed the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I found some contributions rather sad, not least the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the new programming. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said that programming is another word for guillotine. I think that it is a more rational word and that programming might lead to improvements that are not available within the guillotine system. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North appears to think that under this guillotine motion, which covers all the business that will subsequently come before the House, the concerns, responsibilities and role of Back Benchers will be properly safeguarded. I do not believe that they will be.
I am deeply worried about some of the proposals—in particular, the fact that Back Benchers will have less opportunity to do what they are here to do. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we are here to represent our constituents. As hon. Members have said, Members of the House might not have the privilege of serving on a Standing Committee and, because of the number of people who want to speak, may not be able to speak on Second Reading of an important Bill. Therefore their only opportunity to make a contribution would be on Report or during remaining stages. If even those stages are to be programmed and limited, many Members on both sides of the House will be very unhappy that their responsibilities are being removed, reduced and undermined.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North—who, as a distinguished Minister, did very well in the positions that he held—has so little understanding of the impact of what the House, under a guillotine motion, will decide this afternoon.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Did the hon. Gentleman understand my point? I did not say that Back Benchers should have less opportunity to speak, but that they should have at least as much opportunity as they have now. My point was that they should speak more succinctly within a programmed motion. [Interruption.]

Mr. Winterton: I am hearing murmuring to the effect that that is not in the proposed amendments to the

Standing Orders. I must agree with my hon. Friends and those on the Government Benches that that point is not dealt with. However, I must still say to the hon. Gentleman—a distinguished ex-Minister—that there are occasions on which Members believe that the interests of their constituents or constituency deserve more than two or three minutes, in which he says hon. Members should be able to get their point across. If he is right, why do Ministers and shadow Ministers take so long to speak from the Dispatch Box? Even the hon. Gentleman when a Minister took rather longer than two or three minutes. Why should he as a Minister be treated any differently from me, an evergreen Back Bencher?

Mr. Henderson: I hate to prolong the debate, but I was not for a second advocating that Ministers should be allowed lengthy periods in which to speak. They should be equally succinct.

Mr. Winterton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must debate the business motion. How long Ministers have spoken or intend to speak has nothing to do with the business motion—perhaps another time.

Mr. Winterton: I accept your courteous reprimand, Mr. Speaker, and shall seek to keep my remarks to the business motion.

Mr. Redwood: Has my hon. Friend noticed that one of the many ironies of this debate is that we have now spent almost two hours discussing how the business is to proceed? If the Government had let us debate the substance right from the beginning, we might have found that six hours was sufficient to expose the problems with the proposals. Have not the Government contributed to making it impossible for the House to consider the matters properly?

Mr. Winterton: I believe that I implied that in saying that I fully support the request of my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire and for Aldridge-Brownhills and of Government Members.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As someone who has been in the House a very long time, can the hon. Gentleman tell me of an occasion on which debate on a business motion of such importance was not opened by a statement from the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Winterton: I have to be a little careful in how I respond to that question because I fully accepted the Speaker's reply to my point of order on that matter. I felt that the debate might have been so opened, but I must fully support our Speaker: he does not have any role in who wants to speak and who does not. If the Leader of the House had provided an explanation of the business motion, it might well, as the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire suggested, have enabled the House to make more progress and proceed with the debate in a much more orderly and informed way.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that is upsetting so many hon. Members on both


sides of the House is the constitutional outrage of the Government's guillotining something which itself will guillotine future debate?

Mr. Winterton: I was intending to begin my brief speech by saying that the motion is the guillotine of all guillotines. I am sad because, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the former shadow Leader of the House, would agree, we had established some common ground for progress. However, in certain other areas of the Government's proposals, the Opposition are deeply concerned that their role and that of Back Benchers will be eroded.
One great problem in debates on matters that relate entirely to the House, and should therefore be House of Commons matters, is that, however impartial the individual in question may seek to be, these are presided over by a member of the Cabinet. That causes me some concern because, as has been said, none of the details on the Order Paper today have been discussed by the Modernisation Committee. The motions have clear implications for the way in which the House can operate. The House would be far better to proceed by having a general debate on the issues contained in the Select Committee's report, and then having separate debates on the important changes to Standing Orders.
I make a plea to the right hon. Lady. I know that she has a difficult job to do, and that in general she does a very good job in the Committee. I respect her for it and praise her for it, but will she not listen? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who is no longer in his place, said, referring to words originally spoken from the very position in which the right hon. Lady is sitting, today's Government is tomorrow's Opposition. The House needs to proceed with agreement and by agreement on such important matters.

Mrs. Angela Browning: The Leader of the House has heard representations from both sides reflecting how strongly right hon. and hon. Members feel about the two motions before us.
The House will recall that only last week, the right hon. Lady proposed that our deliberations tonight should be curtailed at 8 pm, rather than 10 pm. I ask her to reflect carefully on the reason that she gave me at business questions on Thursday for the timetabling of debates of such importance to the House:
It is more time than we spent debating the parliamentary calendar and as much time as we spent debating whether we should set up the experiment in Westminster Hall. There is therefore nothing unprecedented about the time allowed for the debate.—[Official Report, 2 November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 854.]
From the contributions that she has heard tonight, the Leader of the House must know that there is a world of difference, particularly in respect of parliamentary representation of the democratically elected representatives of the people. There is a world of difference between motions of the magnitude of those before us, and the arrangements for Westminster Hall and the parliamentary timetable.
I hope that the right hon. Lady has taken on board the feeling of the House. As several hon. Members on both sides have said, this is not a party political matter; it is a

matter for Parliament. It is at the heart of our democratic proceedings. The way that we deal with it tonight will be seen as a reflection of the extent to which the Government, of which the right hon. Lady is a member, respect the right of individual hon. Members to challenge the Executive, and the right of an official Opposition to have sufficient time and opportunity to challenge the Government of the day, whichever party is in government.
I see the right hon. Lady's papers on the Dispatch Box. I hope that she will address that issue. No doubt the House will want to consider other important matters of a constitutional nature, and it would be wrong of the Modernisation Committee—I say this as a new member of the Committee—to give equal weight to matters such as Westminster Hall and the motions before the House tonight.
There is one litmus test that should be applied to our deliberations tonight, whether in this debate or on the substantive matters to follow: do the proposals strengthen the Executive, or do they strengthen the right of hon. Members to scrutinise, question and debate? That is the test. It is not a matter of hon. Members' personal arrangements for attendance in the House. The fundamental question has been reflected in many of the contributions that we heard.
I shall not take up any more of the time of the House, but I hope that there will be an opportunity later to make a more substantive contribution to the discussion of matters that will change the House and our proceedings in the next Session, to the detriment of hon. Members on both sides, who are here to represent their voters.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will reassure us that she understands the importance of the motions and that, as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, she will reflect carefully on the differences between matters that have constitutional significance and those that are simply procedural and deal with the efficient running of the House.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall speak briefly because I want the substantial debate to begin as soon as possible. The past hour and a half has demonstrated to my mind beyond doubt how much better it is for the House to come to an agreement between the parties, including Back-Bench Members as far a possible, on the programming of business.
Over the past hour and a half we have taken up time when it is important to discuss substance, not the ethereal issue of whether we think that a guillotine is a guillotine or a programme motion. To my mind, a programme motion is the sensible way to make our business more orderly and to provide opportunities to Opposition Members to ensure that their issues are properly addressed. There have been occasions when we have managed to do that.
I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against a timetable motion that is a guillotine. We should not use a guillotine for business of this sort. However, I believe that a programme motion is a proper way for us to undertake our business, and to do so in an orderly fashion. I am extremely disappointed that we have spent an hour and a half discussing the various merits of these different procedures, and during that time have not heard from the Leader of the House. I hope that we shall hear from her now.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): In line with the many injunctions that I have received, I do not propose to detain the House for long. It was because I thought, and still think, that the substance of what we are here to debate was what was really important, that I did not take the time of the House to explain the business of the House motion. It is unfortunate, to put it no higher, that the use of the word "guillotine" has become so commonplace that it is used for any motion of any sort that seeks in any way to curtail debate.
I am aware that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who I am sorry is not in his place, takes and expresses the view that any curtailment of the length of speech that an hon. Member wishes to make is a guillotine and something which he regards as an abuse of our procedures. We all know that we would never complete any business if that were the approach adopted by the House as a whole.
I shall repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) last Thursday. We are not dealing with a guillotine. Before us is a business of the House motion that is designed to ensure—[Interruption.] It is a normal sort of motion that appears on the Order Paper every day of the week. It is designed to ensure that the House can come to a view on the orders that are before it at a sensible time.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: No, not for a moment.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton quoted some of the examples that I gave about time. To be frank, I am astonished that the House thinks that an ordinary full parliamentary day is wholly inadequate to discuss the business that is before us, all the more so given the precedents that I gave the hon. Lady from this Parliament and the previous reports from the Modernisation Committee. In addition, I am sure that she will recall an occasion when the previous Administration made changes to the Welsh Grand Committee. Those changes were of such weight that they were considered an alternative to devolution.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: Not for the moment, please.
That was the importance and the weight that the previous Administration put on those changes, and they were debated for only half a day. In allowing a full parliamentary day for the processes of the debate, the Government were not acting in any way that was out of the ordinary.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I ask the right hon. Lady to reflect on what Opposition Members have been saying. The debate is not about programming. We are asking for a proper debate on the principle of the Modernisation Committee's reports, such as the right hon. Lady is providing for on Thursday when the Liaison Committee's report can be debated in principle, so we can later address in detail the specific orders.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) has said, even the members of the Modernisation Committee have not seen the terms of the orders. They have not had a chance to discuss them in that Committee. Can the right hon. Lady not accept what so many of us are asking for in the interests of the House, and allow us to have the debate in principle and then allow us to debate the orders at a later date?

Mrs. Beckett: I shall return to that point in a moment, but first I want to discuss another matter. Inadvertently, I am sure, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) gave the House what I understand to be incorrect information. It is not the case that the greatest number of guillotines in a Parliament or in one year occurred during this Government—that record continues to be held by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Redwood: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Beckett: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The facts, I fear, are not on his side. During the Parliament of 1987–92, there were 27 guillotines, and more were used during one of those years than during any year of this Parliament.

Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Lady is misleading the House.

Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Lady is misleading the House. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) may wish to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Lady is mistaken.

Mr. Speaker: To say that the right hon. Lady is mistaken is better.

Mrs. Beckett: I simply inform the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that that is my information, which I have had checked and cross-checked. He believes that any motion that curtails debate, whether by agreement in a programme motion or by imposition by the Government, is a guillotine. The distinction that I use is recognised by the Clerks of the House and everyone else. If he has other information that he wants to share with us, I would be happy to give way to him.

Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Lady makes the common mistake of counting the number of guillotines used. Current jargon refers to the number of Bills guillotined, but a Bill may require one, two, three or four guillotines during its passage through the House. I thought that that was clear in the right hon. Lady's mind. I do not seek to contradict her, but she is genuinely wrong to say that the number of Bills guillotined during the 1987–92 Parliament was greater than the number guillotined during this Parliament. This Government hold the record.

Mrs. Beckett: I accept that the hon. Gentleman makes his point in good faith, but on every previous occasion when Conservative Members have alleged that fewer questions are being answered, that recesses are longer or


that more guillotines are being used, their information has never proved more accurate than ours. I leave that thought with him.

Mrs. Browning: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am anxious not to take up the House's time discussing this matter at length.

Mrs. Browning: I hope that the right hon. Lady will examine annexe C of the report of the Modernisation Committee—her own Committee. The language and methodology used to put the information into the public domain was at her and her Committee's discretion. Annexe C refers to the
Numbers of Bills timetabled since 1945.
The list that I read out earlier clearly shows that during the past three years, 34 Bills have been timetabled.

Mrs. Beckett: This matter will no doubt be aired time and again. I do not accept the hon. Lady's point. If one calculates the figures in exactly the same way, it is clear that there was a heavier use of the guillotine in previous Parliaments.
That brings me to my second point, which was raised by, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—not, I believe, by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson). My hon. Friend said that hon. Members came here not to discuss the daily timetable but to examine what affects people's lives. She is correct—that is why we are all here. Unfortunately, however, we are discussing the timing rather than the substance of the debate. That is, I fear, a very good parallel. We have spent a long time discussing how long we should discuss what we are all told is an important matter.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I want to make one further point in response to my hon. Friend, who has already made several contributions to this debate. She went on to say that we are concerned with the curtailing of debate. My response to her and to other hon. Members who made the same point is that this discussion is not about whether we curtail debate, unless we adopt the legitimately held attitude of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who said that any attempt to end a debate involves curtailment. Others would argue that the ordinary process of having a measured debate in a suitable time allows people to focus that debate better and that it is not necessary to cut the time that is available.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The way the House organises its debates, including their time, date and place, directly impinges on the quality of those debates and on their meaning. Even in the Labour party, we normally appreciate the connection between the way in which agendas and debates are organised and the effect that that has on the discussion that ensues.

Mrs. Beckett: We have debated, and will undoubtedly continue to debate, whether there is merit in changing the way in which debates are focused to ensure that they cover all the important and substantive issues. Is that more important than not limiting the length of time that is available, which does not provide a structure to the debate?

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to bring my remarks to a close. I am anxious to turn to the substance of our debate. I remind Conservative Members, who talk as if these are unprecedented proposals—the words "binding" and "irreversible" have been used on several occasions—that the motion, should we ever reach it, involves Sessional Orders, which would expire if they were not renewed. The order contains an experiment, and no proposals would be binding or irreversible. I refer those Conservative Members who said that our approach is unprecedented to the remarks of another of my distinguished predecessors, Lord Newton of Braintree. He said that
the voluntary timetabling of legislation, has improved the sensible scrutiny of legislation. It has certainly taken us away from the rather absurd situation that existed when I first became a Member of Parliament, in which, almost routinely, the Opposition, of which I was then part, talked endlessly about the early clauses of a Bill, which inevitably drove the Government to impose a guillotine, and the later parts of the Bill got very little discussion.—[Official Report, 11 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 628.]
This debate has moved to and fro not for some hours today but for at least 10 years in the House, and probably for much longer. To some extent, I take issue with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), whose views I know and respect. There is a world of difference between the issues that we are discussing today and those to which he alluded. This is not the first occasion on which the programming of discussion in the House has been considered—it is probably the 155th occasion. The principles that lie behind the motion raise matters of importance—the Government do not dispute that. That is why we are anxious for those proposals to be discussed. The ideas that underlie our proposals are not new, and the substance and the principle about whether to structure debate or to leave it unstructured are not new; what is new is the detail of the proposals.

Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene later in our debate, I shall certainly give way to him. I have concluded the remarks that I wanted to make, and I am anxious to move on to the substance of our debate.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to protest at the timing of your acceptance of the closure motion moved by the Government Deputy Chief Whip.
I and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) were present throughout the debate and we were the only two Members to rise regularly as soon as an hon. Member had finished speaking. We had shown our interest by some brief interventions and we had hoped to contribute. I submit that it would have been more appropriate not to accept the closure motion until after our speeches had been made.

Mr. Speaker: Any hon. Member can move, That the Question be now put. Whether to accept the motion is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, and there can be no discussion about that.

The House having divided: Ayes 251, Noes 164.

Division No. 321]
[5.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cox, Tom


Ainger, Nick
Cranston, Ross


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Alexander, Douglas
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashton, Joe
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Atherton, Ms Candy
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Austin, John
Davidson, Ian


Banks, Tony
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Barnes, Harry
Dawson, Hilton


Barron, Kevin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Beard, Nigel
Doran, Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Drew, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Drown, Ms Julia


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Berry, Roger
Edwards, Huw


Best, Harold
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blackman, Liz
Etherington, Bill


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Flynn, Paul


Bradshaw, Ben
Follett, Barbara


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foulkes, George


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Casale, Roger
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Cooper, Yvette
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)





Howells, Dr Kim
Pearson, Ian


Hoyle, Lindsay
Perham, Ms Linda


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hurst, Alan
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Illsley, Eric
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pond, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Pound, Stephen


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rammell, Bill


Keeble, Ms Sally
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kemp, Fraser
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kidney, David
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruane, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruddock, Joan


Kingham, Ms Tess
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lammy, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Sawford Phil


Laxton, Bob
Sheerman, Barry


Lepper, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leslie, Christopher
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Levitt, Tom



Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Skinner, Dennis


Linton Martin
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCabe, Steve
Soley, Clive


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Southworth, Ms Helen


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McIsaac, Shona
Stevenson, George


McNulty, Tony
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


MacShane, Denis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McWalter, Tony
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McWilliam, John
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mallaber, Judy
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Martlew, Eric
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Maxton, John
Timms, Stephen


Meale, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Merron, Gillian
Touhig, Don


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Trickett, Jon


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Mitchell, Austin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Moffatt, Laura
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Tynan, Bill


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Morley, Elliot
Walley, Ms Joan


Mountford, Kali
Ward, Ms Claire


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
White, Brian


Mullin, Chris
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


O'Hara, Eddie
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Olner, Bill
Wyatt, Derek


O'Neill, Martin



Organ, Mrs Diana
Tellers for the Ayes:


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Mr. Clive Betts and


Palmer, Dr Nick
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Allan, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Amess, David
Horam, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baldry, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Jenkin, Bernard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bercow, John



Beresford, Sir Paul
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Blunt, Crispin
Keetch, Paul


Boswell, Tim
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)



Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Key, Robert


Brady, Graham
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brake, Tom
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brand, Dr Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Breed, Colin
Letwin, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lidington, David


Burnett, John
Livsey, Richard


Burns, Simon
Loughton, Tim


Burstow, Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey



Maples, John


Chidgey, David
Mates, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clappison, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Moore, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Norman, Archie


Collins, Tim
Oaten, Mark


Corbyn, Jeremy
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Öpik, Lembit


Cotter, Brian
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paterson, Owen


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Randall, John


Day, Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
Rendel, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robathan, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Nigel
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fabricant, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Don (Bath)
St Aubyn, Nick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Sanders, Adrian


Fox, Dr Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gibb, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Streeter, Gary


Green, Damian
Stunell, Andrew


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Hague, Rt Hon William
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hancock, Mike
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heald, Oliver
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)





Tonge, Dr Jenny
Whittingdale, John


Townend, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Trend, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Tyler, Paul
Willetts, David


Tyrie, Andrew
Willis, Phil



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Walter, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel
>Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Eric Forth and


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Sir Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 168.

Division No. 322]
[6.11 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Alexander, Douglas
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Allen, Graham
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ashton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dean, Mrs Janet


Atkins, Charlotte
Doran, Frank


Austin, John
Dowd, Jim


Banks, Tony
Drew, David


Barron, Kevin
Drown, Ms Julia


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Edwards, Huw


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Berry, Roger
Flint, Caroline


Best, Harold
Flynn, Paul


Blackman, Liz
Follett, Barbara


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foulkes, George


Bradshaw, Ben
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Casale, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Caton, Martin
Grogan, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chaytor, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Cooper, Yvette
Hope, Phil


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)






Jamieson, David
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatheld)
Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rammell, Bill


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kidney, David
Rooney, Terry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rowlands, Ted


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ruane, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ruddock, Joan


Lammy, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ryan, Ms Joan


Laxton, Bob
Savidge, Malcolm


Lepper, David
Sawford, Phil


Leslie, Christopher
Shaw, Jonathan


Levitt, Tom
Sheerman, Barry


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Linton, Martin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Skinner, Dennis


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Southworth, Ms Helen


McIsaac, Shona
Spellar, John


McNulty, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


MacShane, Denis
Stevenson, George


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McWalter, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McWilliam, John
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mallaber, Judy
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Martlew, Eric
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Maxton, John
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Meale, Alan
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Merron, Gillian
Timms, Stephen


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Touhig, Don


Mitchell, Austin
Trickett, Jon


Moffatt, Laura
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Morley, Elliot
Tynan, Bill


Mountford, Kali
Vis, Dr Rudi


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Ward, Ms Claire


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
White, Brian


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


O'Hara, Eddie
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Olner, Bill
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Organ, Mrs Diana
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Wyatt, Derek


Pendry, Tom



Perham, Ms Linda
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Clive Betts and


Pike, Peter L
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hammond, Philip


Allan, Richard
Hancock, Mike


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heald, Oliver


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Baldry, Tony
Horam, John


Ballard, Jackie
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Barnes, Harry
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Jenkin, Bernard


Bercow, John
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul



Blunt, Crispin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Body, Sir Richard
Keetch, Paul


Boswell, Tim
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)



Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Key, Robert


Brady, Graham
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brake, Tom
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brand, Dr Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Breed, Colin
Letwin, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lidington, David


Burnett, John
Livsey, Richard


Burns, Simon
Loughton, Tim


Burstow, Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey



Maples, John


Chidgey, David
Mates, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clappison, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Moore, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Norman, Archie


Collins, Tim
Oaten, Mark


Corbyn, Jeremy
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Öpik, Lembit


Cotter, Brian
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paterson, Owen


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Pearson, Ian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Prior, David


Day, Stephen
Randall, John


Duncan, Alan
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Rendel, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Robathan, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fabricant, Michael
Ruffley, David


Fallon, Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sanders, Adrian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fox, Dr Liam
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gale, Roger
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Soames, Nicholas


Gibb, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Spring, Richard


Golding, Mrs Llin
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Streeter, Gary


Gray, James
Stunell, Andrew


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)






Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Whittingdale, John


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wilkinson, John


Townend John
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Willis, Phil



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tyler, Paul
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tyrie, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Viggers, Peter



Walter, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles
Mr. Eric Forth and


Waterson, Nigel
Sir Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That at today's sitting the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Programming of Bills and Deferred Divisions not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

Programming of Bills

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 1999–2000, HC 589, on the Programming of Legislation and the Timing of Votes. First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 1997–98, HC 190, on the Legislative Process. Report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, Session 1991–92, HC20.]

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I shall read out a statement. It may assist the House if I indicate how the debate on the motions relating to the programming of Bills and deferred Divisions will now proceed. There will be a joint debate on the two motions and on the amendments which I have selected. If proceedings are not concluded before 10 pm, I shall call Members formally to move the selected amendments (d) and (g) to the first motion, before the House decides on that motion.
I shall then call the Leader of the House formally to move the second motion and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) formally to move his amendment (d) to it, before the House decides on the motion itself. I hope that that will assist the House.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could guide me. We have just had a Division on a closure motion to curtail debate on motion No. 1, but on the Order Paper—the Government's own Order Paper—it clearly states that debate on that motion may continue until any hour; that is marked on the top right-hand corner. What is the relevance of the markings that suggest that debate can continue until a certain time if they can be overridden so easily by a closure motion?

Mr. Speaker: That would have arisen only if the 10 o'clock motion had been agreed to. "Until any hour" applies only if the 10 o'clock motion is agreed to. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having read the Order Paper earlier, I was confused. Under "Main Business", we have the business of the House motion, which we have just discussed. Then the Order Paper says:
At 10.00 pm
Business of the House
and then there is a motion tabled in the name of the Prime Minister saying
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Business of the House relating to Programming of Bills … may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
That suggests that the Government are prepared at least to consider extending the debate beyond 10 o'clock tonight. Am I right?

Mr. Speaker: The 10 o'clock motion that the hon. Gentleman sees on the Order Paper is no longer necessary.


We will stop at 10 o'clock. That is why I have made the statement. I will call for the amendments that I have selected to be put before the House at 10 o'clock.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you clarify one point about which we were not entirely sure? I take it that you have selected no amendment to motion No. 3. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker: Amendment (d) has been selected. Is that clear?

Sir Patrick Cormack: indicated assent.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That in the next Session of Parliament Orders A to I below shall have effect:

A. Programme Motions

(1) If, before Second Reading of a Bill, notice of a motion providing for—

(a) committal of the Bill, and
(b) an allocation of time to proceedings in Committee on the Bill,
is given by a Minister of the Crown, the motion may be made immediately after Second Reading and Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills) shall not apply to the Bill.

(2) Such a motion is to be called a programme motion.

(3) An order made by the House as the result of a programme motion is to be called a programme order.

(4) A motion to vary or supplement a programme order is also to be called a programme motion.

(5) The question on a programme motion to vary or supplement a programme order shall be put forthwith unless paragraph (7) applies.

(6) Otherwise, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion shall be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

(7) This paragraph applies to a programme motion to—

(a) reduce the amount of time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on the Bill (whether or not it also increases the amount of time allocated for other proceedings on the Bill);
(b) bring forward the date on which the bill is to be reported to the House in accordance with a programme order; or
(c) add to the proceedings to which a programme order applies.

(8) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) applies to proceedings on a programme motion.

(9) Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of time) does not apply to a programme motion.

(10) If a programme order applies to a Bill, neither Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) nor Standing Order No. 120 (Business Sub-Committee) applies to the Bill.

B. Programming Committees

(1) This order applies if a Bill is subject to a programme order which makes provision for proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading.

(2) There is to be a Committee for the Bill consisting of—

(a) the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is to be chairman of the Committee); and
(b) not more than eight other Members, nominated by the Speaker.

(3) The Committee is to be called the Programming Committee.

(4) The quorum of the Programming Committee is four.

(5) The Programming Committee shall—

(a) consider the allocation of periods of time to such of the proceedings in Committee of the whole House (or on consideration and third reading) as it thinks appropriate to designate; and
(b) report any resolution which it makes to the House.

(6) On a motion being made in the House in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

(7) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the Bill.

(8) Proceedings on a motion made under paragraph (6) may be entered upon and decided, though opposed, at any hour.

(9) Resolutions of the Programming Committee—

(a) may be reported from time to time; and
(b) subject to the powers of the Speaker or Chairman to select the amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which designated proceedings on the Bill are to be taken.

C. Programming Sub-Committees

(1) If a Bill is subject to a programme order which commits it to a Standing Committee, the order stands referred to the Committee and shall be considered by a sub-committee of the Committee.

(2) The sub-committee is to be called the Programming Sub-Committee.

(3) The Programming Sub-Committee shall consist of—

(a) the Chairman or one of the Chairmen of the Committee (who is to be chairman of the sub-committee); and
(b) seven members of the Committee, nominated by the Speaker.

(4) The quorum of the Programming Sub-Committee is four.

(5) The Programming Sub-Committee shall report to the committee any resolution which it makes about—

(a) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in the Committee;
(b) the allocation of the proceedings to each sitting;
(c) the time at which any proceedings, if not previously concluded, are to be brought to a conclusion.

(6) On a motion being made in the Committee in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

(7) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the Bill.

(8) Resolutions of the Programming Sub-Committee—

(a) may be reported from time to time; and
(b) subject to the powers of the chairman to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings are to be taken.

D. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House

(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings in standing committee or in committee of the whole House to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Chairman shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others—

(a) any question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;
(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chairman for separate Division;
(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Chairman shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.

(5) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those provisions.

(6) On conclusion of the proceedings in a Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill (or such of the Bill's provisions as were committed to it) to the House without putting any question.

E. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration or third reading

(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration and Third Reading to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)—

(a) any question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;
(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate division;
(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.

F. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single question on any further amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown; and
(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment; and
(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has—

(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or
(b) disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,

the Speaker shall put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

G. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords

(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on any further message from the Lords to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords proposals.

H. Programme orders: Reasons Committee

(1) This order applies in relation to any Committee to be appointed to draw up Reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman.

(3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(4) Proceedings in the Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than half an hour after their commencement.

(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (4), the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(6) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further question being put.

I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions

(1) The provisions of this order apply to proceedings in the House or in Committee of the whole House on a Bill which is subject to a programme order.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) applies to the proceedings for any period after ten o'clock (or on Thursday, seven o'clock) allocated to them in accordance with the programme order.

(3) The proceedings may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

(4) If, on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day, a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) would, apart from this order, stand over to seven o'clock—

(a) that motion stands over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to conclusion at or before that time; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

(5) If a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day is one to which a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day is postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

(6) No dilatory motion may be made in relation to the proceedings except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion is to be put forthwith.

(7) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of the programme order.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (d) to the above motion, in paragraph (6) of order A, leave out 'three-quarters of an hour' and insert 'three hours'.

Amendment (g) to the above motion, after paragraph (10) of order A, insert—
'(11) On a day on which a programme motion is to be moved, the Speaker shall put the Question on a second reading of the bill to which that Motion applies not later than 9.30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and 6.30 p.m. on Thursdays'.

Motion relating to deferred Divisions:
That in the next Session of Parliament the following Order shall have effect:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question.
(2) Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply (and this order shall not apply) to questions—

(a) on motions or amendments in the course of proceedings on bills or allocating time to or programming such proceedings;
(b) on motions which may be made without notice;
(c) on motions to be disposed of immediately following the disposal of amendments proposed thereto, and on such amendments;

(d) on motions made under—

(i) paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business);
(ii) paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and Means motions);
(iii) sub-paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with bills);
(iv) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates); and
(v) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.); and

(e) on motions made under paragraph 3 below or to which an order made under that paragraph applies.

(3) After the moment of interruption and the conclusion of proceedings under any other Standing Order which fall to be taken immediately after it, a minister of the Crown may make a motion to the effect that this order shall not apply to questions on any specified motions; such motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the opinion of the Speaker is challenged under paragraph (1) of this order, he shall defer the division until half-past Three o'clock on the next Wednesday on which the House shall sit.
(5) On any Wednesday to which a division has been deferred under paragraph (4) above—

(a) Members may record their votes on the question under arrangements made by the Speaker;

(b) votes may be recorded for one and a half hours after half-past Three o'clock, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division; and

(c) the Speaker, or the Chairman, shall announce the result of the deferred division as soon as may be after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.

Amendment (d) to the above motion, in paragraph (5), leave out from beginning of sub-paragraph (a) to end of sub-paragraph (c) and insert—

'(a) a list of the deferred divisions to be taken on that day shall be printed in that day's Order Paper;
(b) deferred divisions shall be taken at the commencement of public business; and
(c) Standing Orders No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting) and No. 41 (Quorum) shall apply to deferred divisions.'

Mrs. Beckett: I rise, as Chair of the Select Committee, to place before the House the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. A previous report of the Committee is also relevant, as is some of the report of the Jopling Committee from 1992.
First, I stress the fact that the purpose of the proposals is to improve the workings of the House of Commons, to make it more efficient and effective. There are two main proposals in the report. The first is that the House should agree a proper programme for debating all legislation that is brought before it. The second is that some of the votes that may now fall after 10 pm should be able to be deferred, so that they can be taken during the ordinary parliamentary day.
The proposals on programming offer the House the opportunity now to take a decision on issues that we have been considering in one form or another for more than 10 years. In two reports in the 1980s, the Procedure


Committee recommended programming in Standing Committee. The 1992 report of the Jopling Committee noted:
The evidence given to us on timetabling of bills was almost without exception in favour of its general use.
That is in paragraph 67. It went on to say:
The arguments in favour of the proper scrutiny of all parts of a bill are compelling; and timetables applied from an early stage after second reading are probably the best way to avoid the capricious effects of a guillotine being imposed at a later stage.
None of those proposals was fully pursued, though there have been encouraging experiments such as the voluntary timetabling of Committee discussions on, for example, the Greater London Authority Bill. In 1991, in evidence to the Jopling Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), then shadow Leader of the House, put forward on behalf of the then shadow Cabinet proposals that included programming discussion on all Bills.
Those ideas were further advanced in the earlier recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, in paragraph 89 of its first report of the 1997–98 Session, for
arrangements for programming legislation which are more formal than the usual channels but more flexible than the guillotine.
That proposal was for programmed discussion on all major Bills, but it envisaged—the report was on an all-party basis—that that would be by consent, which it clearly anticipated would be generally forthcoming.
The House will know that such arrangements began to be used. However, it then became clear that consent to the continued use of such procedure was unlikely to be obtained. Indeed, it also became clear that consent for a proportionately less demanding scrutiny for more minor Bills might no longer be available. That is the process that I have described as "working to rule". I give the House one simple example of what I mean.
No Government would have expected, or would have needed, to guillotine a measure such as the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill, which simply remedied what I believe were unintended errors by the previous Administration—but, as a result of the process of working to rule, the Government did need to guillotine even that minor legislation.
It has become clear to many Members that we need the capacity to manage the House's time in regard to any such business. That realisation led a majority on the Modernisation Committee to the proposal for a mechanism for universal programming—a mechanism that is in the Sessional Orders. As Sessional Orders, they allow the House to experiment with this method of managing our business.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Leader of the House suggesting that the Government have some right, divine or otherwise, to present any number of Bills in any given Session and then to subject them to this timetabling procedure? The example that she just gave may or may not be relevant, but it occurs to me that two things could happen: either the Government could present a large number of Bills, or they could introduce many Bills during a Session and then use the right hon. Lady's logic to ram them through in a virtuously timetabled way.

Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman means "virtually"—but I will not detain the House on that point.
It is, of course, the case now that the Government can present as much or as little legislation as they choose, although it is up to the House to decide whether or not to accept it. It is also the case that the Government can, and from time to time do, impose a guillotine on any proposed legislation.
The advantage of a guillotine to Government is that it gives certainty about when discussion of a Bill will end. The disadvantage, for the whole House, is that it is a timetable imposed by Government for the convenience—if you like—of Government, and consequently need not take account of the range of items included in a Bill, or indeed of issues on which the Opposition, as opposed to the Government, might wish to concentrate.
I have looked at some of the evidence given to the Jopling Committee. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has done the same, for he is assiduous in his research. If so, he will know that many members of his party—including the then Minister for women, Mrs. Angela Rumbold—argued for programming of this kind. That was not least, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]—I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me be the first to welcome you to the Chair.
As I was saying, that was not least because Mrs. Rumbold felt that the House should behave in what she called a more grown-up way.

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: On that point, I will gracefully give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bercow: I thank the right hon. Lady.
Further to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), why does the right hon. Lady not plainfacedly acknowledge that she is proposing less debate on more Bills of greater length? How does she justify presenting such a proposal at a time, and during a Session, when no fewer than 2,537 pages of legislation have been dealt with? That represents an increase of 947 on the number of pages dealt with during the last Session. It simply does not make sense.

Mrs. Beckett: First, I am not proposing less debate. There may be amendments on the Order Paper that suggest some curtailment, but we are not proposing less time for debate. Secondly, nothing in these measures suggests that there will be more Bills—or, indeed, that Bills will be of greater length. Indeed, as I hope to show the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the proposals will have the opposite effect.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I echo the right hon. Lady's words of welcome to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Lady is again missing the point, which is unlike her. The fact is that many of us would be very willing to discuss programming, so long as the Government were willing to discuss rationing—rationing, that is, of the number of Bills that they present. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), however, has made an unanswerable point. If we are submerged in reams of legislation, programming equates to guillotining.

Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recall, we discussed rather more legislation 10 or 15 years ago than we discuss nowadays. The trend is down rather than up.
The orders allow Bills to be programmed directly after Second Reading, on a motion tabled—as is normal—by the Government.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it intended that constitutional Bills should be excluded from programming and guillotining? That has always been a tradition in the House.

Mrs. Beckett: I believe that we have made no specific provision for constitutional Bills. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that all the provision that has been made includes a procedure to weigh the importance of the issues involved, and to decide how much time is needed. Precisely such considerations would need to be taken into account if a constitutional Bill were discussed on the Floor of the House.
The detailed provisions needed for programming are set out in the orders. Each motion on a Bill will be able, within the framework set by the orders, to specify clearly what time will be allowed for business. The essence of what is proposed will then be put to the House, which will have a much clearer picture than is provided by the long and complex motions currently used to specify proceedings with regard to any guillotine. The programme motions will be debatable for 45 minutes, as such debate will now be focused on the detail of proposals for each Bill, rather than on the principle of timetabling at all.
The Committee expects these procedures to enable the Opposition to identify parts of legislation that are of particular concern to them, and to concentrate debate where they wish. The Opposition have, as always, made much of the power to delay, but it has always been the case that that can, if necessary, be overridden by the guillotine. There has been no mechanism for ensuring, and no pressure to ensure, that members of all parties make considered decisions on how legislation should be dealt with, which Bills are most important, and which provisions in those Bills require most scrutiny. The Modernisation Committee's Report gives us the framework to do just that.

Mr. John Redwood: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the right hon. Lady accept that we would take what she says in good faith rather more if she understood the mood of the House on this important issue? If she is to let the Opposition debate issues that really matter to them, why can we not have the two-stage discussion for which many Members on both sides of the House have asked—one debate on the principles, and one on the detail?
Presumably the right hon. Lady will recommend that we break up for the Christmas recess at least two or three days before Christmas Eve. Could we not have a one-day debate just before that—on a free vote, so that Members who were not interested would not have to attend—enabling us to settle the issues, and enabling Members to express their own views?

Mrs. Beckett: There is a free vote today, on this side of the House.
We are well aware that there are those who would wish to separate the decision that we make on the orders from the discussion that we are having today. Let me repeat what I have already said: we have been discussing the issues, and the principles that underlie them, for many years, so I do not think that the notion that these proposals are new to the House bears scrutiny.
What today's report offers the Opposition is worth far more than the power to delay or simply to block debate. It is the power to choose to focus debate on the parts of legislation that the Opposition believe deserve most scrutiny, and to expose the weakness of the Government's arguments—if they can.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: What my right hon. Friend emphasises is the very thing that worries me about this programming. She is saying, quite simply, that those on the Opposition Front Bench will have a chance to agree whatever programming motion they want—that they will have a chance to decide the order in which Bills are debated. The whole point of the debate about programming, however, is that it is Back Benchers who will be unable to decide either the order or the importance of the matters that they are debating.

Mrs. Beckett: I accept my hon. Friend's point completely. She will be pleased to know that that matter was aired, discussed and thoroughly considered by the Modernisation Committee when we discussed the proposals, as there was concern that such a problem could legitimately arise. Obviously, we all try to make provisions to cover all those matters, but any Opposition who are aware of concerns that Government Back Benchers want to be aired, but make sure that they are not aired, are a very stupid Opposition indeed. I go no further than that, but it is evident that there is an interest.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am terribly sorry, I must be very dim tonight—but is my right hon. Friend saying that if I want to raise a certain matter as a Member of Parliament, and the Opposition are in control of the programming, they will automatically assume that what I wish to raise as a Government Member is sufficiently important to be given precedence? If that is the case, I must tell my right hon. Friend that that has not been my experience over the years.

Mrs. Beckett: It is possible to programme discussion and debate so that different points of views can be aired and heard as often as is normally possible in the House. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that it is not open to any of us to guess what is in the mind of another when that person is called to speak. On the other hand, there are sometimes indications, which are used in the House.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to move on to another issue.
So far we have talked about the issue of the timetable for Second Readings. However, I want to make sure that the House takes on board the fact that, just as the overall timetable for a Bill will be debatable on Second Reading, it is proposed that when detailed provisions to timetable discussion in Standing Committee are suggested, the House—if the Bill is taken on the Floor of the House—


or the Committee will be able to debate those proposals for up to half an hour. As you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is fuller scrutiny than has been available under the conventional guillotine procedure, in which, due to a precedent set by the previous Government, discussion of the time for debate comes out of the debate of substance. Again, any detailed timetable, should one be required, would focus debate on issues identified as important by Opposition parties and Back Benchers.
These mechanisms give the House the capacity to be flexible, or as prescriptive and detailed, as necessary. For example, we may find in practice that we need only end dates, especially for discussion of more minor Bills. It may be thought that more structure is needed to ensure that all issues are covered in debates on Bills of more substance.
I shall touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) a moment ago. I wish to say clearly to the House what I have already said to the Select Committee and my colleagues in Government: our proposals bring greater rigour and predictability into our management of our business, as well as far greater transparency. I have no doubt whatsoever—indeed, I have warned the Select Committee and my colleagues about this—that if brought into effect, the proposals will place substantial pressure on Government—any Government—to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny, better preparation of Bills, and, almost certainly, less legislation. That will produce benefits as well as problems.

Sir Peter Emery: On that particular point, several Members have always advanced the major argument that programming should ensure that all parts of a Bill, and all major matters in it, can be debated in Committee. That greatly benefits legislation, but I can find nothing in the order that sets out that principle. I believe that principle should be set out. Indeed, one could easily have put it in paragraph (5)(a) of order C, which deals with the programming of sub-Committees, to ensure that all parts of a Bill and major matters in it are considered. I am disturbed that the Government did not include that in the order, as I had believed that that was their intention.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, and hope that to some extent I can reassure him. As always, it is a matter of balance, and of what it is right to include in Sessional Orders, as opposed to motions and what can be covered in other ways. Obviously, the matter depends to some extent on whether one wishes to have a detailed programme motion to cover all aspects of discussion of a Bill, or simply all aspects of it until it reaches Committee. Certainly, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, it was very much the Modernisation Committee's intention, and is the thrust of our report, that the proposed procedure has the advantage that all parts of legislation could, and would, be properly considered and given their weight and due.
The question is simply whether one puts that in the Sessional Orders. It may well be that it can be put in a programme motion, especially if at first the House wishes to have detailed programme motions for all the legislation that comes before it. That matter can be aired.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I may be able to answer the point that he is about to raise.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) will know that the report includes a proposal for informal discussion after the Queen's Speech across the House, with representatives of all parties present, to inform the decisions that the Government need to take. Obviously the Government will have a view, as every Government have always done, on the major pieces of legislation in a programme, and on which Bills are expected to be the most controversial or need the most time. That discussion is always held in government under any Government. The informal proposals in the Select Committee report suggest that that discussion can be informed by views across the House, and that other Members of Parliament can contribute and say which matters they think are the most controversial, most weighty or time-consuming. Again, that could be reflected in programme motions.
I should also like to stress that we considered the question whether that should be a more formal structured process. The recommendation to the Committee was that it should not deliberately tie people's hands, as sometimes in the early stages of legislation, a matter is taken to be not particularly weighty or controversial, but events may change things. or when the Bill is published, people's views may change. Therefore, it was felt that there should be room for manoeuvre for those who suggested that a certain Bill was a more minor one, so that they could come back, change their minds and inform discussion about the drafting of the programme motion.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve); I apologise for making him wait.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who was not sufficiently psychic to read my mind.
How can we take the proposal seriously, when in this Session, the Government were prepared to impose a guillotine on the undoubtedly contentious Police (Northern Ireland) Bill after only 12 hours' discussion because they wanted to ensure that the tight time frame for the Bill was adhered to? Effectively, they gave us only three weeks to discuss that Bill. There is nothing in the proposals to prevent a repetition of such a performance, as I am sure the right hon. Lady will be able to confirm.

Mrs. Beckett: I readily confirm it and, indeed, do not seek to conceal that from the House. However, the hon. Gentleman has not chosen a good or typical example. After all, we are talking about a Bill the timing of which was driven by the peace process in Northern Ireland as much as by anything else. The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill is a piece of legislation that, under any Government, would come into the category of proposals likely to be introduced as something of an emergency, and likely to be dealt with in that way—[Interruption.]
Opposition Members may not like that, but most people outside this place would recognise that there is something particularly special and important about the Police


(Northern Ireland) Bill. They may even recognise that the timing of that legislation might have something to do with the peace process and events in Northern Ireland. If Opposition Members—or some of them, at any rate—do not think that that is how most people would approach the matter, they are even more out of touch with public opinion than I thought. However, I do not wish to get involved in the substance of particular legislative proposals.
I simply highlight the fact that the process that is described in the Committee's report, and specifying the framework for decisions in the Sessional Orders, will allow the House more structured debates. It will also allow—indeed, facilitate—examination of all parts of legislation. Everything that I have heard and read of the contributions of most of my predecessors in the past 15 or 20 years, and of many other long-serving and distinguished hon. Members, leads me to believe passionately that the orders will substantially improve our processes of debate.
I also fear that the orders will have a strongly inhibiting effect on the ability of any Government to implement their legislative programme. I say this with deep respect to those who are engaged in these processes, but what is now hidden, discussed through the usual channels or—as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) would undoubtedly assert—imposed on Back Benchers by agreement among Front Benchers, will now all be open. It will all be before the House. People will have the opportunity to contribute and to make known their own points of view when the programme motion is discussed. The report also contains recommendations that on Report and in Committee, proceedings should not continue past 10 pm.
All of that will have an impact on how long it takes any Government to pass their legislation. Labour Members are prepared to accept that consequence, because we believe that it will substantially improve the way in which the House works.

Mr. Tyrie: I wonder if the right hon. Lady could help to clarify one point. The intention is to have programming of the Standing Committees' consideration of all Bills, except for those few Bills on which there is sufficient agreement to make programming unnecessary. We know from experience, however, that Bills are very often altered beyond recognition by amendments tabled in Committee by the Executive. What provision will there be to enable the programming to be revisited, and what guarantees can the Opposition have that that provision will be satisfactory?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right—there has been a history of that under both the current Government and the previous one. Although we could argue about who started the practice, I will not do that now. However, there is provision for altering the programme motion, should such events occur and Bills be substantially changed. There would need to be such provision. There is provision for supplementary motions, either in Standing Committee—if such a motion becomes necessary during debate there—or, subsequently, perhaps on Report, in the House.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The right hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way, and I appreciate it.

My point is similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). Will she explain whether, under paragraph (4) of order A, a motion to vary the programme order would include a carry-over motion? If so, and if all Bills are to be programmed—and, therefore, possibly carried over—we need not have a state opening at all.

Mrs. Beckett: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention that the issues that we are discussing should apply to carry-over. He will know that separately, the Modernisation Committee recommended that we should experiment with carrying over some legislation—which I think that we have done only once, with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. However, the order that we are debating does not affect the proposals for the use of carry-over at all.
I turn now to the issue of voting on stand-alone business taken after 10 pm. The whole House will know that such issues can vary sharply in importance, from relatively routine business decisions on which a vote is taken forthwith, to a statutory instrument in which a few hon. Members—but only a few—take a great interest, to an issue in a statutory instrument that arouses substantial concern on both sides of the House. The Committee had no wish to curtail debate on such issues when they are of substance, and has made no such proposal. However, all hon. Members are aware that the process of voting itself has been used to detain hon. Members late at night, even when no debate was possible, or when only a handful of hon. Members were engaged.
I know that many colleagues, on both sides of the House, feel that the sheer unpredictability of being so detained, without even being sure that there will be a vote at all, is one of the worst aspects of our procedures—[Interruption.] I am aware that not everyone shares that view, but it is a view that is legitimately held.
We are all perfectly well aware that 999 times out of 1000, those matters are so handled not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of tactics. On 5 October 2000, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), with commendable but perhaps embarrassing candour, said to the Daily Express:
We have played merry hell here in a number of ways, one of which is taking votes late at night.
There is no hon. Member who supports the proposals who does not take his or her work as a parliamentarian seriously. There is none who is not willing to put in long hours on matters of weight, substance and importance. There are, however, many who feel that we as a Parliament are not behaving seriously if we do not direct our efforts to proper scrutiny of the substance of proposals before us, rather than simply to taking up time, keeping people into the small hours unnecessarily, or deliberately setting out to make life uncomfortable for the sake of it.

Mr. Forth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Beckett: It would be appropriate to give way to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to the Leader. Does she concede that there is an equal danger—I put it no higher than that—that if one of the outcomes of the proposals, including the deferred division proposal, were that


hon. Members attended even less often than many of them do now, the House might be brought into even greater disrepute?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish the public to get the impression that the House is ill attended. He will know as well as I do that hon. Members are here in large numbers every day and for very long hours; one has only to go into the car park to see that that is the case—[Interruption.] Indeed, the Chamber is not always as full as the car park. I invite Opposition Members, or at least some of them, to search their consciences and see whether they can imagine a reason why that might be the case.
All hon. Members do take their work seriously, and I know of no hon. Member who seriously objects to being here for the long hours, which we all work, to discuss issues of substance. However, I know of many who have strong objections when they feel that time is being wasted.
The proposal before us is that if a Division is called on business being taken after 10 pm, those votes should be deferred to the following Wednesday afternoon. The detailed arrangements for deferred Divisions will be under the authority of the Speaker, both to ensure their impartiality and to give flexibility. In essence, however, hon. Members will vote on ballot slips listing the decisions that have been deferred. I should stress that the proposal acknowledges that not all decisions could or should be so deferred.
The order therefore exempts, for example, decisions in the course of debate on a Bill. Consequently, however, and as I highlighted a moment ago, the report recommends that, in programming consideration of Bills, the aim should be to end consideration at about 10 pm. Nevertheless, the Committee recognised that, whereas the process of consideration would end at 10 pm, there may be consequential Divisions, perhaps when a Bill is being considered in Committee or on Report.
I fully recognise that many hon. Members will quite legitimately have concerns about deferred votes separating the vote from the debate. However, we have such separation now. Particularly when considering Bills in Committee or on Report, we vote when we reach the relevant point on the Order Paper, which is not infrequently entirely separate from the debate.
I have known hon. Members, even very experienced hon. Members, to fail to call a Division by which they had hoped to embarrass the current Government, purely because they had forgotten to do so at the appropriate time. So separate were those Divisions from the debate that those hon. Members lost their opportunity. It will be within the recent memory of hon. Members on both sides of the House that, when there was an important matter of division and discussion in the House, Labour Members took the opportunity to make it plain to hon. Members exactly how and when they should call Divisions, should they wish to do so, so that the opinion of the House could be tested. We already do separate decision from debate.

Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Lady seems to be making the most compelling case against her proposals. She is

rightly pointing out that the divorcing of the voting process from the discussion process is unsatisfactory, and yet she intends to build on that in the proposals.

Mrs. Beckett: No. I did not say that it was unsatisfactory. I said merely that it was by no means unprecedented. We do it all the time.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful, as always, to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but she is making a wholly spurious analogy. There is all the difference in the world between the minor deferments to which she is referring and the proposal that votes should be put down on bits of paper the following Wednesday. If that is what she is after, we may as well all pack up and go home.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not accept that it is an invalid point. First, we are talking about individual, stand-alone issues on one particular subject, not those that interact with other discussions. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it is not infrequently the case that Divisions occur on matters that the House does not debate at all, purely in order to cause inconvenience. So I do not agree that there is something wholly unacceptable about the proposal.

Mr. John MacGregor: rose—

Mr. Christopher: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I have to give way to a former Leader of the House. I shall then make progress, because we have a curtailed debate.

Mr. MacGregor: Quite apart from all the other objections to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) has drawn attention in his minority report, does not the right hon. Lady agree that the system will be unworkable? The idea of voting as we do in private Member's Bill ballots is not a serious analogy. That is a ballot for presenting a Bill. The proposals refer to votes that should take place in the Chamber. Does she really think that if there are a number of votes on a Wednesday and there are also votes in the House, the whole system can work?

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, indeed. As is now the case on certain occasions, if there were Divisions in the House, the amount of time available would have to be extended in order to allow Members the certainty of having an opportunity to express their views. The Modernisation Committee gave considerable thought to these issues, although I readily concede that it will create problems for some hon. Members—I trust that I am not one of them. The Whips on both sides will have a different and possibly slightly more difficult task. Obviously, that is a matter for them, but it is not a reason for saying that the proposal would not work.

Mr. Gill: I too welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It cannot possibly be right to vote on an issue up to a week after the debate. In the intervening time the Whips will work on hon. Members of their respective parties, the press will express their views on the rights


and wrongs of the decision that we are about to make, and our constituents may also have something to say. That smacks of double jeopardy.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way for the last time, to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Pike: Is it not important to remember that on two important occasions—the Budget and the Queen's Speech—we always vote at the end of five days' debate? We do not vote on each specific issue on the day that it is debated.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I do not propose to dwell on it.
The proposal to programme more legislation is not new. Nor is it one put forward only by Labour Members or uniquely by the Government as a means of oppressing the Opposition. It is put forward frequently by many who comment on our affairs, including recently the Norton report, and a report from the Hansard Society.
For myself, I have long opposed—and I do not think that I have ever practised—the tactics of simply wasting time. Although my years in the House have inured me personally to the hours that we keep, I have long been conscious that they often produce bewilderment rather than admiration among the public, and that they never contribute to our effectiveness as a legislature. I fear that people only think that they are more eloquent at 2 o'clock in the morning.
It is often said that the chief weapon of the Opposition is time, and that is held to mean only delay, but I believe that the chief weapon of the Opposition—and Labour has had more years of experience of it—is the constructive use of time. Their strength or their weakness is the strength or weakness of their argument, not how long it takes to put it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made the point that members of the Select Committee were very aware that in recommending that how time is used be primarily in the hands of the Opposition and of Back Benchers, they were creating a new and, they believed, a more potent weapon. However, what they were certainly doing, and what the House will do if it carries the motions tonight, is to place our proceedings on a clearer, firmer and more effective basis. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said quite correctly that we have not discussed in detail, although we have touched on them, the parliamentary calendar, the parliamentary year and the parliamentary day. All those issues are more than worthy of fresh consideration and debate, but the key to them all is the decision that we take tonight.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I, too, welcome you to the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am a new member of the Modernisation Committee and I begin by repeating that any proposal it makes should seek to strengthen the House and its Members in order to

enable them to hold the Government of the day to account, yet the proposals on the Order Paper tonight would not strengthen Parliament—they would weaken it. They would give the Government more power to get their business through more quickly. I shall oppose both motions tonight because they fail that crucial test.
By definition, the word "modernisation" implies change for the good. It is used in a parliamentary context to raise the perceptions of those with conservative views who would change nothing at all and those who seek to break the mould. I do not hold that view, but I believe that the litmus test that I have described is important. I am not opposed to change, but I believe that it should be in the interests of the democratic process rather than to prioritise what is convenient and expedient for individual hon. Members.
The debate led by the Modernisation Committee has been strongly influenced by the intake of hon. Members in 1997, many of whom did not expect to be elected and were unprepared for the terms and conditions of the job that they were elected to fulfil. The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) explained clearly that this is a job with terms and conditions and that individual hon. Members are responsible to those who elect us.

Joan Ruddock: First, I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have been here for 13 years and I have never found the terms and conditions of the House acceptable. I am a normal human being and I believe that I can do my job in the House effectively during more reasonable hours. Does the hon. Lady believe that the proposals would lead to fewer hours? They would not; they would organise the hours in a different way.

Mrs. Browning: If the proposal before the House tonight had been that business should be conducted in more reasonable hours, it would have been reasonable to expect the Modernisation Committee to have at least considered the options of conducting more business during daylight hours rather than bringing before the House one proposal that clearly does not have cross-party agreement.

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Would the hon. Lady also support moves to start the day before 2.30 pm on the days when we currently do that?

Mrs. Browning: I would consider it and that is why I am astonished that it was not considered by the Modernisation Committee. The Government have been judge, they have been jury, they have been cunning old fury and they have not given the House reasonable options. They have put a proposal on the table and asked us to take it or leave it.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Is the hon. Lady not aware that the main reason that the Modernisation Committee has not made those proposals is that they were consistently, regularly and routinely blocked by the Conservative Members on that Committee? That is why the House does not have those proposals before it.

Mrs. Browning: It is nice to hear that part of the Government coalition rowing in. This is not a party


political matter, but one for Parliament and individual Members. Our need for full debate and proper consideration of proposals made it incumbent on the Modernisation Committee to put forward more than one proposal, a point clearly made in the minority report produced by Conservative Members. The proposals before us did not carry the full support of the Committee, and it would have been helpful if, instead of offering us a curtailed business motion, the Government had given us a greater chance to discuss other options for improving the conduct of our business.
Given the views of many new Members who entered the House in 1997, it is unsurprising that the Committee's emphasis has been on the hours of work, late nights, facilities for Members and their families, and other such extramural issues as the right to breast feed in Committees. Those issues have doubtless influenced debate, but have coincided with a Government desire, for quite different reasons, to reduce opportunities for parliamentary debate, scrutiny and questions.
New Labour Members are encouraged to spend time in their constituencies, even while the House is sitting. The Prime Minister favours the House with his presence only once a week, apart from the rare statement. Cabinet Ministers prefer photocalls to statements that can be questioned and debated on the Floor of the House. The move to change the way in which the House conducts Government business for the convenience of Members could not be better timed as far as the Government are concerned.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Congratulations on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) accept that open-ended debate is often not an effective way of holding the Government to account? Does she accept that the Opposition are being given greater power than before to decide the timing of contentious debates so that they might be available to the media and open to public scrutiny?

Mrs. Browning: I do not agree. I shall come later to substantive parts of the motion, but first I shall discuss why the proposals before us and their timing suit the Government so well. Their agenda is to sideline the House and to prevent Members and the Opposition as a whole from challenging the Government. In March 1998, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in a speech in Germany, declared:
It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is slowly coming to an end.
The right hon. Gentleman and some colleagues prefer direct representation to representation through democratically elected Members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said. For new Labour, all-embracing direct contact with lobby groups, focus groups and other organisations is preferable to being accountable to those who were elected through the ballot box to represent the people in this Chamber.

Mr. David Winnick: Not at all.

Mrs. Browning: Given that sedentary intervention, I hope that the House may be favoured with a visit by

the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who might explain why what he said should have been put on the public record by a member of the Cabinet.
In a recent publication by the Hansard Society, Greg Power wrote:
The decision to focus on the constituency is an entirely logical response to a job where the principal requirement of the New Labour back bench MP is to vote with the party. The problem however, is that the constituency role has risen as an alternative and not a complementary activity to that in Parliament.
It will not have gone without notice that even tonight's earlier debates were administered by the Labour party Whips while Conservative Members were allowed a free vote, with Tellers provided from outside the Front-Bench team.

Mr. Bercow: Is the meagre fare proposed by the Modernisation Committee any surprise, given that that Committee is chaired by a member of the Cabinet and contains no fewer than three parliamentary private secretaries to Ministers, who are, of course, members of the Government payroll vote? The fingerprints of the Government Whips Office are all over the Committee.

Mrs. Browning: I thank my hon. Friend for that and shall offer some suggestions later on how we might modernise in a way that pays respect to the democratic process by changing how the business of the House is conducted so that Parliament rather than the Executive gains strength. If laws and methods of scrutiny and debate are changed to meet the social needs of Members of Parliament, we will undermine the role of Members and neuter the activities of the official Opposition.

Mr. Winnick: Whether I am new or old Labour is a matter of interest to very few people, but does the hon. Lady accept that I always place parliamentary duties alongside constituency duties? When the House is sitting, I hope that I will always be in the House or in the Chamber. Does she also accept that during my years in the House I have always noted strident opposition to change? In 1966, by just one vote, the House was not televised, and it took years before it was. Thursday morning sittings were opposed by many Members but are now regarded as quite normal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That response merely strengthens my view that some people simply do not want to adapt the House of Commons to modern circumstances. It is essential that we should do so, because the House will die—or, at best, decline significantly—if we do not.

Mrs. Browning: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous contributor to the House's proceedings. I do not take issue with much of what he said, but would ask him to put the motions before us to the litmus test. We are not talking only about modernisation, although I agree that persuading people of change is always difficult. We are asking whether the proposals would strengthen the people who sit behind the Front Bench on both sides of the House. I do not believe that they would. Modernisation is an all-embracing generic term, and we


should test whether the Modernisation Committee's proposals improve our democratic process or weaken Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Redwood: rose—

Mrs. Browning: I have been generous in giving way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), so shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).

Mr. Redwood: I am very grateful. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party were serious about making this place more relevant and interesting to the electors who sent us here and who pay our salaries, it would have allowed the House to sit during the fuel protest so that the Government could have stated their case and we could have cross-examined them? In addition, would they not reinstate Prime Minister's questions to at least twice a week? It provides the biggest box-office draw outside the House and inside it, but is the one thing that the Government want to cancel.

Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. On our return to government, very shortly, we shall restore Prime Minister's questions to twice a week.
The first proposal before us is on the timetabling of all Government Bills. As the Leader of the House pointed out, by the end of the debate on the Queen's Speech, the official Opposition would have to guess how much time would be necessary for each Bill's consideration, but entirely without sight of a draft Bill.
Efficient drafting of legislation has not been one of this Administration's hallmarks. Earlier this year, the Government's flagship Utilities Bill was well into Committee when the Government finally acknowledged that it was flawed and abandoned half of it. Conversely, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which remains in another place, has had 125 pages of amendments added to it. The Commons has not yet had a chance to consider those, and it is unlikely that we will be able to do so very fully.
If the Modernisation Committee had been serious about improving the workings of the House, it would have addressed the cause rather than the symptoms of why the House had been kept late to deal with a backlog of legislation. We clearly have such a backlog in spite of the fact that devolution was supposed to lighten the legislative load. The Committee is instead proposing that the Opposition should be bound, at an early stage, to the Government's agenda. That sounds cuddly and friendly, but it could clearly undermine an Opposition. If the Government have an agenda in a Queen's Speech, with a list of Bills that they believe are their priority and are right for the country, they should defend their view. They should not ask the Opposition to second-guess before we have had an opportunity to see how badly drafted some of that legislation is.

Mrs. Beckett: There is nothing to compel the hon. Lady or any Opposition Member to take part in the

discussions if they have no wish to do so and nothing to say. There is no suggestion of binding the Opposition in some way. The idea is to give them an opportunity to express a view, to consider the programme as it is set out and to say, "You may have thought these issues are not controversial, but our initial reaction is that these are the Bills on which the House should spend time." The purpose of making the process informal was so as not to bind anyone. If Opposition Members do not want the opportunity to contribute to the discussions, that is fine.

Mrs. Browning: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, as the legislation for a Session is listed as on a menu, and given our experience of the appalling drafting of many of the Government's flagship Bills in this Parliament, it is virtually impossible for the Opposition to negotiate a timetable motion for various stages of certain Bills?

Mrs. Beckett: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Browning: I hope that she will assure me that, to make the proposal more practical and to fulfil the outcome that she described, measures are in place to improve the drafting of Government legislation.

Mrs. Beckett: Such measures are in place. If they are successful, legislation will be entirely different from how it used to be under the Conservative party.
There is no suggestion that the Opposition would be bound in some way. The whole idea is to give not merely the official Opposition but representatives in the House the opportunity to express a view based on what they know in the early stages. That is one reason for making the process informal. As a Bill emerges, people sometimes realise that they have more concerns about it. Conversely, something that people thought might take a great deal of time might not turn out to be so weighty and would, therefore, require less. There is no suggestion that anyone should be bound in any way. The opportunity is merely being offered to the Opposition to contribute to how the weight of the parliamentary year should be distributed. I am never one for having meetings if they are not necessary. If the hon. Lady does not want to make her view known, that will be fine by me.

Mrs. Browning: We understand now why the Liberal Democrats were so keen on this proposal. If they are going to take an interest in Standing Committees, I hope that their attendance in those Committees will improve; it has been lamentable.
The minority report produced by Conservative Modernisation Committee members described the way in which Divisions are to be deferred as "a mass vote-in". The right hon. Lady described the procedure. Members will vote weekly on a Wednesday between 3.30 pm and 5 pm. I have huge concerns about that. I am amazed that she cannot understand the concerns of the House. The system would break so many principles—the right of a Member of Parliament to debate a matter and then vote on it, and also the way in which that vote is cast.
At the moment, when a Division is called, the cry goes out, "Clear the Lobbies." There is a good reason for that—it allows all "strangers" to be excluded from the route to the Lobby. Under the proposal, a ballot paper printed on the Order Paper a week after the original debate will be


prepared, possibly outside this Chamber—indeed, even outside the House—and submitted by the Member to the Clerk in the Lobby. One can almost hear the whir of the printers in Millbank tower as they prepare the Wednesday votes for those Members whose only interest in the week's votes is to ensure that they do their master's bidding. As for those brave souls who might have indicated dissent, the Whips will have had a week to change their minds.
I was also concerned to read on the Order Paper and to hear the right hon. Lady repeat—

Mrs. Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Browning: In a minute. The Leader of the House described the procedure that will be used; it will involve the Speaker, which is totally inappropriate. It is wrong to involve the Speaker, under the guise that the Chair is neutral, in a matter that could be so contentious across the Floor of the House. The Modernisation Committee should have identified a way in which the procedure was decided by the hon. Members who cast the votes. It should not involve the Speaker.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Browning: Indeed, I will, but first I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons).

Mrs. Fitzsimons: The Speaker already has powers over the selection of amendments, which can be crucial to the outcome of votes—that has been a key to Opposition lobbying for a long time—and over free votes, such as those on abortion. Therefore, the Speaker is already considerably involved in the order of debate and so forth. Does the hon. Lady accept that?

Mrs. Browning: There is a difference between the order of debates and selection of amendments and breaking the principle that votes should be cast immediately after a debate. Those votes could now be decided outside the House, or be subject to third-party influence. The Speaker should not be required to put his name to that method. It is not only flawed, but wrong.

Mrs. Beckett: I hope that I can ease some of the hon. Lady's anxieties. It is for the House to decide whether to carry the motion. The House has to decide to carry out the procedure. It is suggested that the Speaker should exercise a general supervisory role, as he does now, through the Clerks. The reason is simply to allow a degree of flexibility.
The proposal is for a period of an hour and a half—to be interrupted by Divisions if necessary. After some experience of the system, hon. Members may speedily decide that they need a little extra or a little less time. The hon. Lady identified the problem of having sufficiently easy access to the Lobby. Those issues may be aired. We ought not to decide all the detail tonight, nor should the procedure be set in tablets of stone. The obvious people to supervise the process are the Speaker and the Clerks,

as they supervise all our procedures and votes now. The principle will not be in the hands of the Speaker; that is what the House will decide tonight.

Mrs. Browning: It would be nice to know how the Committee arrived at the decision that votes on a Wednesday would be the optimum method. Clearly, it is minded to deny hon. Members a vote on substantive matters after 10 o'clock at night from the Queen's Speech onwards.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have just been treated by the Leader of the House to an unbelievable description of what happens in practice? Does my hon. Friend also agree that if we are to do something about the situation that has developed in the past 100 years and to restore the role of the House as it used to be—a proper debating Chamber where Back Benchers have a proper role—it is essential that there is a Speaker' s Conference and that the role of the Whips is included? If it is not, everything that the Leader of the House has said will turn out to be simply a handful of dust.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is of concern that the debate on this important issue will be curtailed. Matters that were not thought through by the Modernisation Committee are being brought up by Members who feel passionately about the changes and are affected by them, yet despite the importance of the matter, they will have to vote on those changes after an extremely short debate.

Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat incongruous that, under the proposals, someone entering the House on a Tuesday afternoon, after a victorious by-election, will be able to vote—on the following day—on a matter that may have been debated on the previous Wednesday night, before he or she was even elected?

Mrs. Browning: That is why I suggested a litmus test for the Modernisation Committee's proposals: whether they enhance the democratic process. The excellent example given by my hon. Friend shows what a mockery the proposal is.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Browning: I will give way once more, but I want to make some progress as I am aware that many hon. Members want to contribute before the 10 o'clock deadline.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Leader of the House that to delay votes until Wednesdays puts phenomenal power into the hands of the Whips? As someone who rebelled on many occasions during the previous Parliament, I have experienced that power, but many Labour Members do not experience it—nor have they done so in the past. The power to register one's vote almost immediately—having worked out the issues during a debate—takes away hugely from the


power of the Whips to spend time bullying and exerting massive pressure on individual Members. That power works against them, but they do not care.

Mrs. Browning: Indeed. That is why I drew attention to the fact that a time lag of up to a week would subject Members to external pressure that could not be exerted if votes immediately followed debates—pressure from the Whips and possibly from the media and special interest lobby groups. That would break a fundamental rule that we have always upheld: the right of individual Members to cast their vote according to their own judgment. As a result of the proposal, Members would be subject to extraneous pressures.
The proposals would diminish attendance and interest in the Chamber. Their main purpose is to make it easier for the Government to push through not only primary but secondary legislation. The Leader of the House referred to the important votes, but for many of us, the volume of secondary legislation passed by the House is equally important. We hear from people outside this place about the burdens on business and the weight of bureaucracy and red tape, most of which comes from secondary legislation. However, such matters are to be downgraded in the deliberations of the House—at a time when we need to scrutinise secondary legislation even more carefully in this place, rather than introducing a system that makes it more advantageous for Members to be elsewhere and that permits debates to be held much later in the scrutiny process.
The voting system recommended by the Modernisation Committee breaks with most parliamentary conventions. When we vote, we do so on behalf of our constituents. Of course, those of us elected on a party ticket generally vote with our party—with the Government of the day if our party is in power. However, many Members, of all parties, exercise the right to disobey their party Whips—we have heard some examples this evening. I voted against the wishes of my party on two occasions. I did so for principled reasons on matters of importance to me and my constituents. Important issues will be debated after 10 o'clock at night. It is essential that Members have the right to cast their vote immediately after such debates.

Sir Patrick Cormack: As someone who not infrequently voted against the Conservative Government on matters such as free sight tests and free dental inspections—matters that appeal to Labour Members—I point out to my hon. Friend that it would not have been easy to wait a week to vote on a Wednesday. If there is to be deferred voting, we should hold it at 9 am the following morning, when Members have had a chance to read Hansard. They should then vote properly in the Lobbies. That is the most that we should do.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend tempts me to try to tweak the Modernisation Committee's ill thought through proposals in order to improve them a little. I oppose the proposals on a point of principle. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend will want to be involved in the new policies that a Conservative Government will introduce. They would enable Members to put their responsibility

for democratic representation first. My hon. Friend is far too young to remember the Crossman experiments in the 1960s—

Mr. Winnick: I remember them.

Mrs. Browning: As the hon. Gentleman has first-hand experience, perhaps he agrees with the report on that experiment: in almost everyone's view, holding debates in the morning and voting later in the day was an abysmal failure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills pointed out, the change was made purely to accommodate the Government.

Mr. Winnick: The experiments did not succeed, because the Conservatives thought that it was wrong for us to sit in the morning and for votes to be taken later. Surely, we should advance from that. As I have proposed on other occasions, the times of our Thursday sitting should be repeated on other days—certainly on Wednesdays.

Mrs. Browning: I shall not be drawn on that. If I had wanted to tweak the proposals, I should have tabled amendments to the motions. I did not do so because I object to the motions on principle. Although I was not a Member of the House during the Crossman years, I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I remind him that the Crossman diaries show clearly that the motivation for that change was not the interest of Back Benchers but that of the then Government.
The views of the House and its individual Members are important. If the proceedings of this place are to reflect our responsibility as the democratically elected representatives of the people, neither of the motions will strengthen that responsibility. It is for that reason that I shall vote against both motions; I urge my hon. Friends to do the same.

Mr. Clive Soley: Madam Deputy Speaker, I join in the congratulations on your promotion to the Chair—it fits you well.
The way in which Conservative Members approach the subject of our debate highlights their problems in dealing with such matters. They make a fundamental mistake to assume that the Opposition's only weapon is time. When I was elected to this place in 1979, I believed in that theory, but it is deeply flawed; it has not been true for at least 50 years and probably longer.
Part of me says that I should let the Opposition find out about their mistake in the same way as I did—trying to use that weapon to effect changes in Government policy during 18 years in opposition. During 10 years as a member of an Opposition Front-Bench team, I managed to have only one amendment accepted—by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—and it was not especially significant. I was not the only Member to experience that—we could not effect change by that method alone.
However, something more serious was going on. People outside this place—not least in the media—began to notice that the weapon of time merely amounted to Members of Parliament talking for talking's sake. That did the House immense damage. That is why so few


people now take notice of our proceedings. However, if we follow through the process on which we are currently embarked—and there are many more reforms yet to come—the power and authority of Back Benchers will be increased.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for whom I have a great deal of respect, feels genuine anger about the lack of power for Back Benchers. I share that frustration, but as I have said to him before, he is missing the point if he thinks that we can restore that power by rowing backwards. We cannot. The great age of the House in the 19th and early 20th century occurred because the circumstances and the way in which we governed worked for that period. However, we cannot just bring that forward. We cannot live in our history; we learn from our history.
The reason why the House became the cutting edge of democracy around the world in the 19th century was precisely that it was the most modern parliament in the world. We introduced new technology. We gave greater power to Back Benchers. I want to make a few remarks about why I believe the proposals will help us. In doing so, I say to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that his anger is misdirected. I know that he feels it deeply, but I plead with him not to get angry but to get organised.
We must radically change a number of things in the House not only to keep up with the constitutional changes that the Government are rightly introducing but to make ourselves more relevant to the people of this country. Several Opposition Members have said that the Government are forcing the proposals through and getting their own way, and that the House does not want them. The House is governed by the majority and the majority is on the Labour Benches. The House wants more modernisation, not less.

Mr. Tyrie: I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that some Opposition Members are not against all programming in principle and see that there might be some merit in some of the proposals, but the problem is that the proposals before the House are all take and no give by the Executive. Nothing in them would enhance the ability of Back Benchers to scrutinise the Executive, and there are many ways in which our powers will be reduced. The hon. Gentleman says that we should not get angry but get organised. Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any way in which including the proposals in the Standing Orders will give any Back Benchers, including Labour Members, a chance to influence the Executive more?

Mr. Soley: That is precisely what I intended to do in a few moments. I was going to say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene again if I do not satisfy him—but perhaps I should not do so because that was a long intervention. I want to make some other brief points before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
One or two hon. Members have said that the proposals implement family friendly policies. They do not. If people think that finishing at 10 or 11 o'clock at night is family friendly for hon. Members who do not see their families during the week because they live back in the constituency, all that I can say is that they must have very funny families. The proposals are not about being family friendly. They may lead to a more family friendly approach, but they are about not legislating at 3 o'clock

in the morning, which is not sensible and not understood by anyone outside the House. They are about better scrutiny of legislation, which was the point of the intervention by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).

Mrs. Browning: I must read to the hon. Gentleman the quote from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons), who is in her place. She said in her article for the BBC:
Yes, the proposals will make the House of Commons more family-friendly—I'm fed up with falling asleep on the phone to my husband—it's become a family joke. And yes, Westminster will become more women-friendly if these proposals are adopted, and it's probably true that the large number of women who've come into the Commons this session have driven through reform.
The priority is clearly a family friendly policy, not scrutiny.

Mr. Soley: I have no problem with that because it is obviously better for families if people are not here all night or in the early hours of the morning, but it does not follow that it is the ideal family friendly structure to finish at 11 o'clock at night and not see one's family during the week. If the Government were introducing the proposals for family friendly reasons, they would start from a differing position.

Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the Opposition need to consider the need for family friendly policies? If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) looks behind her, she will see not a single woman on the Opposition Benches. Can she not understand the need for change?

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I return to the key issue of how the proposals can help to produce better legislation. For a start, we will no longer vote late into the early hours in order to kid people that we are giving better scrutiny to Bills. We know what the truth is. In the early hours when we come to vote, there is hardly anyone in the Chamber any way. That is not better scrutiny.
Then we come to the more interesting and hopeful part, which is what Opposition Members ought to focus on. If we can programme legislation, we can do one of the other things for which the Modernisation Committee and other Committees have fought for years.—we can take evidence on Bills. We all know that one of the reasons why Governments are reluctant to allow evidence-taking sessions is that they do not want to lose control of the timing of proceedings on the Bill. Government Back-Bench Members who at present sit in Committees trying to catch up with their work—that happened under the Conservative Government and it happens now—will have an opportunity to scrutinise more effectively, to question and to cross-examine.
The proposals will result in less legislation. Governments will have to face up to the fact that it will be more difficult, not easier, to get Bills through. They will make it more difficult for them to ram through lots of amendments at the last minute. It is more likely that amendments will come out of the evidence-taking sessions from hon. Members on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?] Opposition Members doubt that, but when the late


Nicholas Ridley was a Minister, I was faced as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman with 1,200 amendments to a Bill—I cannot remember which one—tabled in the last few days of proceedings on it. I did what we all do. I took advice from all the pressure groups and lobby groups, partly because Members of Parliament are not resourced enough to do the research themselves. We get into the trap in which legislation is driven through either because increased numbers of Bills are introduced or because last-minute Government amendments are tabled and we cannot give them effective scrutiny—the very thing about which the Conservative party is complaining.
If we want good scrutiny, we have to do several things. First, we have to make sure that Committees take evidence and scrutinise, rather than play for time. Secondly, we have to ensure that the Opposition parties and Back Benchers achieve greater control over the time of day when Bills are debated so that debates take place under the observation of the media rather than in the early hours. All Governments kick away debates into the early hours when legislation is embarrassing. Thirdly, we must ensure that when amendments are tabled as a result of better scrutiny, the Government are able to take them.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, but is not one of the problems the fact that it will still be open to the Government to do exactly what they have been doing in the past 12 months and what they did, for example, after the Omagh bombing? They have forced through on guillotine motions legislation that causes disquiet and concern to hon. Members without providing adequate time, entirely on their whim. It is a one-way system in which we are giving power to the Executive and getting nothing back.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and time will prove him wrong. We are setting up a series of structures. I readily admit that more modernisation is necessary to make the system work well, but the proposals will improve it.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: I shall make another point first. It may help to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
About two years ago, I came to the conclusion that the argument about time in this Chamber started from the wrong position. It was almost impossible to argue about when the House of Commons should start and stop sitting unless first we made the conscious decision that we had too much happening on the Floor of the House. That is why I produced a paper calling for what was then described as a parallel Chamber. It is now Westminster Hall. I wanted to get much of the stuff that unnecessarily takes up time on the Floor of the House into a Chamber in which Back Benchers would have a greater voice and in which we could have more debates on Select Committee reports. Back Benchers now have greater opportunities and we can also increasingly carry out the work of this

Chamber in the hours in which the media can examine our work. By focusing our work in that way, we can achieve the better scrutiny that we all genuinely want.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: I shall give way for the last time, because interventions are taking up too much time.

Mr. Bercow: Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, when there are substantial numbers of Government amendments to a Bill, the decision as to whether to alter the timetable for the consideration of that Bill will not be automatic but discretionary, and, similarly, that the extent of any such alteration will be entirely subject to ministerial fiat?

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman appears to fail to appreciate my view that the direction that our modernisation efforts are taking will impose a discipline on both Labour and Tory Governments that they have not experienced before. First, modernisation will produce less legislation because Governments will know that they will have a finite time for it. There will be clear times at which legislation will enter and exit the pipeline. Secondly, they will concentrate on getting the legislation right rather than on dreaming up umpteen amendments at the last minute and banging them on to the Floor of the House. That has happened under Governments of both colours, and it is a very bad practice.
We have to build on these proposals. I would like the House to support the motions as part of a process and not as an answer in themselves. They form one step among many. We will then need to go for post-legislative scrutiny so that, after a Bill has become an Act, we can examine how it has worked. The Conservative Members who have told us that those who are now in opposition will be in government tomorrow and vice versa are right, but have they already forgotten the lessons of the poll tax and the Child Support Agency?

Ms Harriet Harman: And rail privatisation.

Mr. Soley: Yes, and rail privatisation.
Would the Conservative Government have got into such a mess if they had had better scrutiny during the legislative process and Acts had been subject to post-legislative scrutiny? I do not think that they would.
I take a similar view to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills on giving power to Back Benchers, even though we have a totally different approach on how to do that. We must consider the way in which Select Committees work, and I regret the fact that I shall not be present for Thursday's debate. We must also consider providing more resources to Members, so that they can do their job better, and we must examine the management of the House of Commons, which does not have a committee to address the needs of Back Benchers. That is why I would like there to be a radical reform of the House of Commons Commission. All those proposals could return the House to the position that it had when being a Back-Bench Member really mattered. Back Benchers attracted the attention of people outside and were listened to.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does in the early hours of the morning many of the things that I did in the early 1980s. I did exactly the same, but that did not help me. We did not win, but kept losing. However, the most frustrating aspect was not losing but the fact that one's best arguments were totally lost on the general public and the wider world. They are not interested in tactics that merely bring the House into disrepute. That does the damage, and that is why we should take another step towards putting it right and putting the House in the forefront where it used to be 100 years ago when it was the leading legislature in the world. People used this place as an example, but they will not do that with the model that we followed in the late 20th century and that we are following now.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you will be delighted that, for once, the House is taking seriously the business of its own business and that we are not considering this issue rather flippantly late at night.
There are Members on both sides of the House who genuinely come to this issue with an open mind. Without exception, all the members of the Modernisation Committee have addressed the problems to the best of their ability and by using a great deal of experience and expertise. The Committee particularly misses the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who brought to it a level-headed approach and always tried to ensure that we moved with consensus across the Committee.
I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson)—why are we here? The hon. Member for Ealing, South and North Acton—it is something like that—

Mr. Bercow: Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.

Mr. Tyler: Yes, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley)—I should have remembered that it had something to do with sheep—raised the issue of what the world out there thinks of the way in which we arrange our business, and it is important that we do not become so introspective that we do not recognise that there is a real problem with the way in which people outside perceive us. It is perfectly true that Americans love watching Prime Minister's Question Time, but does anyone on either side of the House think that the Government's activities are scrutinised effectively by the House of Commons in that half hour? Of course not—it is theatre. Similarly, most Question Times may provide information, but, usually, they produce more heat than light.
However, Westminster Hall, the Select Committees, the Standing Committees and a Committee of the whole House provide us with a real opportunity to put a Minister on the spot. It is extremely important that we recognise from the start that we are not in a golden age in which everything is wonderful. I start from the premise that we may not be totally broke, but we are somewhere near it and that it needs fixing. Hon. Members on both sides somehow think that we have achieved perfection in scrutinising the work of the Government—be that their

Executive actions or their legislation. I do not believe that, and I certainly do not believe that the electorate who put us here believe it.
We have already heard the quotation from a former Leader of the House, Lord Newton, and I also draw attention to the interesting pamphlet produced by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), in which he advances the case for agreed programme motions. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here now, but his wisdom is to be encouraged.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Tyler: No, because I want to make progress and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to speak. We have very little time as the result of his colleagues activities earlier this evening.
I take as my text a quotation from the minority report put before the Modernisation Committee by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. He said:
We believe that the terms of trade between Parliament and Executive need to be tilted back towards Parliament.
I agree, and I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush and Members on both sides would do so, too. I was here in 1974 and I remember what Parliament was like then. Under successive Governments, attempts have been made by those on the Front Benches—and sometimes in collusion, it has to be said—to prevent the House of Commons from acting as effectively as it should. That is why I welcome the Government's agreement to the Liberal Democrats' suggestion that there should be an informal ad hoc sessional business committee. That would provide Back Benchers and both Opposition parties with real opportunities to tilt the terms of trade back towards the House.
For example, we could say that it would be more appropriate for such and such a Bill to go to the Lords first, because it is not so controversial and we want to get our hands on another Bill. At present, such decisions are made within the confines of a small group of people who sit on the Treasury Bench. The House of Commons is entitled to take a view on such issues. We are also entitled to express a view on which Bills might be better understood by being subject to scrutiny before the full Standing Committee process. That would be helpful.
The interminable debates in the House about how to avoid interminable debates must reach a conclusion. Anyone who has read the Crossman report and the Jopling reforms will know that there were endless discussions about trying to concentrate our efforts on the issues that people wanted to discuss. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) moved a motion in the Jopling committee and it is referred to in the documents before us today. He suggested that the speeches of Front Benchers should be subject to the same restrictions as those that are often imposed on the speeches of Back Benchers. I say amen to that, and other Members have expressed a similar view. Curiously, Front-Bench Members are not very enthusiastic about that attempt to ensure succinctness.
I am keen on the close examination of legislation to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred. It is a pity that, having fired her Exocet, she has left her place, because she made an


important point. Anyone who really thinks that the Floor of the House of Commons at 3 o'clock in the morning is the right place to ensure close examination of legislation—and I have been here then, doing just that—has another think coming. I am sure that she would agree.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, to the nods of Labour Members, but there is nothing in the programming proposals to prevent the scrutiny of legislation late at night when the Government decide to railroad it through the House, which they have often done by introducing last-minute guillotine motions on the grounds of some spurious emergency or need. How do the proposals help us to deal with that?

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman will have seen my colleagues and me vote against the guillotine motion, as we always do. That is common practice because we believe that such motions are always a sign of the Government's failure. Incidentally, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament at the time, but we did the same thing when Conservative Governments pushed through guillotine motions, as they did all too often, sometimes unnecessarily.
That is why we are trying to move on and get away from guillotine motions, so that they are the exception rather than the rule. We are trying to ensure that we can usually have a sensible, businesslike discussion. Any other assembly—let alone any other business community—in the world thinks that it is better to sit down and try to work out the best way to handle business. Extreme measures must be taken when that is not possible, but let us at least make the attempt. That is why I said that the one-and-a-half hours spent on the previous debate would have been much better spent getting on with the substance of the discussion. A serious attempt to obtain agreement to a programme motion for this evening's business would have been preferable to the guillotine, and the Government are at fault there.
In the previous Speaker's letter to the Modernisation Committee—one of my complaints about modernity is that text seems to get smaller as I get older—she reminded it that its first report set out three important issues for programming. First:
The Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation through in reasonable time (provided it obtains the approval of the House).
Secondly:
The Opposition in particular and Members in general must have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance.
Thirdly:
All parts of a Bill must he properly considered.
We all know that none of that happens under a guillotine. I wanted to remind the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that we had a programme when we discussed the Transport Bill which enabled us to have a proper discussion of the important concerns, anxieties and apprehensions of some Labour Back Benchers. If we had had a guillotine and the Conservative party had had its way and gone hell for leather at that Bill, those concerns

would never have been expressed or voted on. There would have been no Divisions on the issues on which Labour rebels wanted to divide.
That is the advantage of a programme motion. It enables hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that their voices are heard. Frankly, we on the Opposition Benches would not be doing our duty and would not be effective if we did not ensure that Labour Members behind the Treasury Front Bench had the opportunity to be heard, not only by voicing their concerns, but by voting.
The former Speaker's letter also said that
the artificial prolongation of proceedings, by whatever means, does the House no credit in the eyes of those whom we represent and is rarely a productive use of the House's time.
Amen to that. If Opposition Members think that that is not true, they have been living in cloud cuckoo land—or perhaps they have just arrived there.
It is extremely important that we make progress this evening, not because this is the end of the process, but because we can experiment in the next few months to see whether we can make some real improvements in the way in which we operate, and change the balance of trade back towards the House to enable hon. Members who are not members of the Government Front Bench to have an effective voice and a more effective vote at a more effective time.
The first amendment to be called, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), demonstrates no understanding of the difference between the whole House taking a businesslike approach to our business and reaching agreement, and the use of the damaging, blunt instrument that is a guillotine motion. That is why I advise all Members to reject the amendment.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and a number of my colleagues, but we are just about to undertake one experiment, and I wonder whether this is the right moment to begin another. I should prefer to return to that proposal when we know whether the first experiment has been successful.
On deferred Divisions, it is extremely important that all parties should tell the Government, fair and square, that we hope that they will avoid tackling major issues after 10 o'clock. They should impose on themselves the self-discipline that the House is accepting for itself. I do not have a problem with the discussion of motions to appoint Members to Committees—not even a motion to appoint the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to the Commission. Hon. Members can discuss those matters all night, if they want.
However, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by Conservative Front-Bench Members, and I would regard it as a problem if the Government, because of their tight legislative timetable, so arranged their business that they had to impose on Members after 10 o'clock. That would be breaking with the spirit of the proposals.
The idea that stand-alone motions should be subjects for debate, and Divisions on them deferred to another time is nothing new—it happens all the time. However,


it would be wrong if matters of legislative importance continued to be debated after 10 o'clock and a Division was then deferred.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman may well be aware that in this Session more than 3,800 Government amendments have been tabled in the Lords. Will the incompetent legislative drafting revealed by such amendments be improved by these reforms?

Mr. Tyler: Yes, I think that it will, as long as there is agreement in the House about the total time that is necessary to deal with amendments. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, the problem under successive Governments has been that we have not had sufficient time for all the issues that Members want to address.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No, I want to make progress because other Members want to speak.
It is extremely important that we recognise that, in future, the slot after 10 o'clock should be for matters that are not of supreme legislative importance; otherwise, Members on both sides of the House will think that they have been sold a pup.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Tyler: No, I want to make progress.
We already have deferred Divisions. Indeed, when there is a Committee of the whole House, it is perfectly possible that votes will take place even a day or two after that discussion.
I love the idea, which has suddenly emerged this evening, that Members, Conservative Members in particular, listen to every word of a debate and make up their mind about how to vote according to the merits of the discussion. I do not know how many Conservative Members were here yesterday when my colleagues and I led two important debates, on pensions and on privatisation, but it was noticeable that some Conservative Members arrived in the Lobby not knowing whether to vote or, if they intended to vote, not knowing which way to vote, and had to be given careful guidance by the Whips.
I accept that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not one of those Members. He always thinks for himself and votes according to his conscience and judgment.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Tyler: That point is absolutely without doubt, and I will not take any interventions on it. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst can speak for himself in a moment.
In a perfect world, of course, all Members would attend every debate, listen and make up their own mind. I recall one member of the Modernisation Committee—I shall not

identify him—wondering, at an earlier stage in the Committee's proceedings, why we could not vote at the beginning of debates. He said that he always knew which way he would vote, so why should he bother listening to the arguments? I completely reject that attitude—

Mr. David Taylor: Name names.

Mr. Tyler: I will not, and the hon. Gentleman might be embarrassed if I did.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No, I have said that I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman may get a chance to speak if I speed up.
It is a grand illusion that everybody somehow reaches their conclusion on how to vote on the precise dot of 10 o'clock, and that if they were asked to do so later, they might somehow be deflected by other judgments. That is nonsense. Amendment (d), tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, on which we shall also vote, is a wrecking amendment. All he wants is to make Wednesday a total nonsense.
It is on evolution that we have been most successful—not with great radical changes but by moving, checking, going back, monitoring, experimenting, making progress. Some hon. Members do not think that we are moving fast enough—I probably share that view—but if we take the majority of our colleagues with us, we are more likely to make sustainable improvement than have to chop and change. That is true for the sittings in Westminster Hall and several other reforms in the Parliament.
I accept precisely the view of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush that we can make progress across the House by experimenting and being prepared to consider matters again. Our great opportunity in the next few months is to do precisely that—I accept that the run-up to the election is a sensitive time—but with a clear end point. If the new Parliament feels that our trial and error has not gone far enough, as the hon. Member for Cambridge suggests, or too far, as others suggest, we can look again.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is not in her place, but I very much welcome the fact that she appeared to be much more open minded on some of the issues about which hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned. I hope that we see that approach reflected on the Modernisation Committee.
However, I very much regret that, on this issue, in this debate, and on the issue in the Modernisation Committee, the Conservatives broke with our previous practice to try to make progress together. On such issues, the House always achieves a great deal more by experimentation with a degree of co-operation and consensus. Nevertheless, we should be making progress tonight, and I hope that the House will vote to do so.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: The proposals are a big step forward in the modernisation of the House's procedures. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as she makes her way out of the Chamber, on producing an innovative solution to some of the


problems to which we have drawn her attention. The proposals will make the House more effective and more efficient. Yes, we need proper time to scrutinise legislation—that leads to better Bills and better law—but that does not mean that we need open-ended time or rambling speeches in which the same points are made over and again. Let us try to make ourselves much more like a modern business, which would not waste its time as we do.
After a good summer break and a fairly light parliamentary timetable so far, most Members of Parliament—at least those on the Government Benches—are beginning to feel like normal human beings. However, I remind hon. Members of earlier in the Session, when we had votes after midnight on a number of occasions. The problem was not so much the lateness of the hour but the uncertainty of how long we would be kept here and whether we would be required to vote. The proposals would remove such uncertainty and allow right hon. and hon. Members to get home at a reasonable time and have a proper night's sleep. I believe that that is important because there is much work for a Member of Parliament both inside and outside the House. We cannot work effectively if we are tired and exhausted.
It has been argued that the proposals will reduce the powers of the Opposition. They will reduce the power of a handful of Tory Back Benchers to hold the House to ransom. A moment ago, in a sedentary exchange, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) admitted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that some of the proceedings that he conducted were to irritate us; he has been open about that. Under the proposals, it will no longer be possible to table amendments, which, though in order, add little to the debate—their sole purpose being to keep Government Members in the House in case of a vote.

Mr. Swayne: Was the hon. Lady present for any of the proceedings of the Scotland Bill, which was programmed as it went through the House? If she was, did she observe that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was constantly frustrated by the programme motion, which, in effect, silenced him on points that he legitimately wished to raise? Has it not occurred to her that the programming will be a stitch-up between the Front-Bench teams to the exclusion of Back Benchers' legitimate points of view?

Mrs. Campbell: I should be very surprised if my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were silenced by any procedure. He is well capable of making the comments that he wants to make, and making them very forcefully and effectively.
The handful of Tory Back Benchers to whom I referred are the sort of Opposition Members who believe in bludgeoning their opponents with tiredness and exhaustion. That is not about opposition; it is not opposition as people outside the House perceive it. They want to hear the arguments and the debate. They do not want to hear Members of Parliament who are tired and out of touch because they are here until the small hours of the morning.
The Opposition are being offered greater powers in exchange. The Modernisation Committee proposals suggest that an informal committee meets after the

Queen's Speech to decide the length of time to consider each Bill, and there will be a programming sub-committee to decide when and for how long contentious parts of Bills will be debated. That is right. It will give people outside the House a better chance to hear the arguments.

Mr. Grieve: In the present Parliament, it has been possible for the Government and the Opposition to arrive at informal arrangements on programming legislation that was taking time, but does the hon. Lady agree that the usual effect of that—we witnessed it when considering the Scotland Bill in Committee—has been to leave reams of amendments and clauses unscrutinised? How will the proposed system be any better in practice? Will she explain that?

Mrs. Campbell: Programming is obviously more effective than the way in which we proceeded previously. If the hon. Gentleman goes into the matter in more depth, he will find that the Tory Whips could not deliver what was agreed between the Government and the Tory Opposition.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Mrs. Campbell: No, I am not giving way again. I have given way twice and I know that many others want to speak.
It is true that the House is held in less respect than in the past. Opposition Members should reflect on that fact and ask themselves why. It is because debate is considered increasingly irrelevant to people's lives. It is because politicians are not seen to be normal people with normal lives. We do not go home in the evening; we do not watch the same television programmes as other people; we lose touch with our families, our children, our grandchildren. We impose that stress on ourselves and on the large number of people who work in this place and serve us so well. If we are so different from other people, how can we properly represent them?
I approve of almost everything in the proposals. No one outside this place would consider them radical. On the contrary, they would consider them just sensible moves by which we can discuss business at times when people are awake. However, I have concerns, and one in particular. That is why I have tabled a very modest amendment, which has been supported by many of my hon. Friends and found support on the Liberal Democrat Benches, too.
The purpose of my amendment is to remove an anomaly in the Modernisation Committee proposals. It is proposed that debate on a programme motion takes place after Second Reading. That means that we could finish debate at 10 o'clock, take votes, debate the programme motion for three quarters of an hour and then take votes on that, keeping right hon. and hon. Members here until 11.30 pm or later. I do not find that acceptable. I propose a very modest amendment that would provide adequate time for debate on Second Reading and on a programme motion, and still we could get home at a reasonable time in order to live like reasonable people.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady explain how her amendment would leave the amount of time for the Second Reading intact?

Mrs. Campbell: Of course, the amendment would reduce the amount of time for Second Reading from about


six hours to five and a half hours. If the hon. Gentleman sees that as a problem, I suggest that he tries to get Opposition Members to be a little more succinct and to express their arguments in a less rambling way than some of them sometimes do.
I believe that we would have adequate time for Second Reading debates under my amendment, which I hope will be supported by a majority of the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: I have difficulty with all the proposals, not least because the analysis that gave rise to them is terribly flawed. I start with the proposition that seems to underpin many of the proposals—that the House does not have enough time to deal with the matters with which it wants to deal through scrutiny and by holding the Government to account. That puzzles me.
If one examines the pattern on which the House now works, it is clear that the House does not sit on most Fridays. Friday used to be a parliamentary working day. We are told that we are desperately short of time, yet the House of Commons chooses not to sit on most Fridays.
There are occasions when the Government artificially prolong a debate—often a Second Reading debate—that could be concluded quite early, allowing us to move on to other business fairly readily, except for the convenience of hon. Members. As we have heard from several Members on the Government Benches, they get upset if they cannot be told exactly what will happen and when. They may be forced to stay in the House or even in the Chamber, because they do not know when the votes may occur. The truth is that we could get a lot more business done in the time if we did not work simply for the convenience of hon. Members, and if the Government Whips did not have to prolong the business artificially so that delicate Labour Members could know what was happening and could return to the House.

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not think that it is for the convenience of our constituents, and extremely important to them, that we are available on a Friday to deal with matters in the constituency and to conduct surgeries? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman does not conduct surgeries. We all do, and we consider it extremely important to make ourselves available in a democratic way in order that people can raise issues of great importance with us.

Mr. Forth: When I did waste my time and that of my constituents doing surgeries on Saturdays, that allowed me to be in the House on Fridays, which I was on all or most occasions when the House used to sit on Fridays.
The hon. Lady's comments give lie to an important consideration which has underpinned much of the debate. For reasons that I think I can begin to understand, Members on the Government Benches see their work in the House as being of little or no relevance, but see their work in the constituency, as the hon. Lady puts it, as being of overriding importance. I dispute that.
My view is that the principal and most important work of a Member of Parliament is here, at Westminster, in and around the House of Commons, primarily holding the Government to account, scrutinising legislation and

questioning the Executive. That is what I believe should be the most important part of the work of a Member of Parliament, so I entirely reject the hon. Lady's assumption that any excuse to be away from here somehow legitimises her work and that of her colleagues.
We can see that theme running right through the proposals, which seem to be designed—particularly the deferred Divisions proposals—to make sure that hon. Members are not here for most of the time and appear only briefly and when it is convenient for them to do so. To my mind, any proposal that starts from the assumption that it is for the convenience of hon. Members misses the whole point of the House of Commons and the relationship between the Executive and the House. That, I believe, is one of the reasons why there is a difficulty in achieving consensus, about which we heard a moment ago.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my previous point, that the difference between the convenience of hon. Members and their social lives, and the convenience of those who have a genuine complaint about what the Government are doing—this affects Government Back Benchers more than other hon. Members—is that when important debates are held after 10 pm in future, the Whips will spend the next few days making certain that there are plenty of reasons why the hon. Members concerned should not and will not be around to make their vote count in due course? That is what will inevitably happen—it is how Governments work.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall return to that point, as it highlights the worrying aspects of some of the proposals.
I challenge the assumption that has underpinned much of the debate so far—that the Government are entitled to get their business. I dispute that. Part of what I try to do as an individual Member of Parliament is to prevent the Government from getting their business at all, or getting it easily. A Government who can get all their business and more easily and without much challenge are in danger of overriding the safeguards that we always thought existed in this House and the other place.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman may recall that after Second Reading, there could be a 45-minute debate on the money resolution. He may also remember that the late Bob Cryer almost monopolised those debates. That was abolished in the previous Parliament. There was a vote on 2 November 1995, and I see that among those who voted to abolish the Back Bencher's right was the right hon. Gentleman. He may argue that he had no alternative because he was a Minister, but many Ministers did not vote on that occasion.

Mr. Forth: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I had to make a decision whether to stay as a member of the Government whom I had the honour to serve or whether to resign in order to express my view on such matters. I made the decision that I should continue to be part of the Government, and I voted accordingly. I had many discussions with colleagues about it and I was never happy with the proposals, but that was the decision that I made. Looking back, I might rather regret it, but I am where I am now, and I feel absolutely free to make the points that I am making as a Member of the House and of the Opposition.
I want to retain as much of a right as I can, as an individual Member of Parliament, to harry the Government, to irritate them, to make their life difficult, to delay them and thereby to try to prevent the damage that they inflict through excessive and bad legislation.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Is not the point exactly the reverse of what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) argues? I remember that when the late Bob Cryer was in his place, the Government of the day used to get deeply exasperated with him, but he was effective because he forced them to come back time and again. Yes, it was wrong to do that, but does that mean that closing down more Back Benchers' rights is the route to take?

Mr. Forth: That is the problem. Those of us who have had the privilege of being in the House for some time must inevitably draw on the experience that we have had, both in government and in opposition. Part of the difficulty is that very many of the hon. Members who are excited about the proposals and support them have experienced only what it is like to be in government. Alternatively, they spend so little time in the House of Commons that they have lost interest in its proceedings. Many of the hon. Members who are behind the proposals fit one or other category.

Mr. Stunell: rose—

Mr. Forth: I exonerate the hon. Gentleman from the second categorisation.

Mr. Stunell: It is always good to hear a sinner brought to repentance, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to have been. Some of us think that there might be other areas where repentance was overdue.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us came to the House because we thought that the entire process of government in this country needed to be changed and improved? We are not discussing a trade union measure to improve our terms and conditions of service. We are trying to make this place effective, and the right hon. Gentleman might sometimes direct his efforts towards achieving that, instead of wrecking our business.

Mr. Forth: I will be the sole judge of what I think is effective and of what I should do. I will stick by my judgment, and I will not be lectured or hectored by the hon. Gentleman or anyone else.

Mr. Roger Casale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: Knowing the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that I will not be lectured or hectored. I am sure that he will give me advice.

Mr. Casale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Earlier in his speech, he said that he judged it to be a waste of his time to meet his constituents in his constituency surgery. Does the same apply to answering their correspondence?

Mr. Forth: I think that I can say fairly that if one of my constituents writes to me, he or she will receive an

answer the same day. I have always rather prided myself that that works. Perhaps it is something to which we should all aspire.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as seems clear from the rather ambiguous speeches of the hon. Members for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), if the timetable for a Bill is determined in advance, and if the issue of whether to alter that timetable is entirely a matter for ministerial discretion, there is no inbuilt incentive for the Government to minimise the number of amendments that they table to facilitate the interests of the House?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has typically put his finger on one of the flaws of the argument that has been advanced so far, which is the extent to which the Government will now control the time that the House will give to each Bill. The Leader of the House said honestly and openly to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, that although discussions might take place, if the Opposition did not want to take part that would not matter very much because the Government would say to the House, "This is the time that we, the Government, believe that the House will spend on our legislative programme."
What my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has said must follow. Why should the Government take any trouble to ensure that their legislation is any better than it has hitherto been? That really does not matter because the length of debate will be determined and Back-Bench Members will be squeezed out. Goodness knows what will happen to the inevitable flood of amendments that we have seen from the Government over three years, which they have had to introduce to almost every Bill to make it not very good but—

Mr. Bercow: Less awful.

Mr. Forth: Indeed.
These measures appear to fail on every count. They appear to reduce—

Mr. David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman seems to justify the classic style that he uses of delay, harry, irritate and obfuscate on the basis that, somehow, that will bring about a welcome change in the direction of the Government of the day, or an amendment. Given his lengthy experience in the House and the various constituencies that he has represented, will he give us examples of that approach being successful in the objectives that he claims for it?

Mr. Forth: Yes. I think that we are seeing an example of that now. The tiny role that I have played so far this Session in delaying some of the Government's progress in this place is being reflected, at least in part, in another place. I would take enormous pride if some elements of the Government's programme were not to survive to the end of the Session. I would claim that I might have played a tiny part in that process in some of the things that I have been able to do over the past few months, when many Members here present were not in the House and were not participating in its business.
I do not want to make excessive claims. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make a small claim. If more Opposition and Labour Members were to


attempt to delay, irritate and obfuscate occasionally, they might find the results rather pleasing and, in a way, unexpected.

Joan Ruddock: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman gained his reputation, or perhaps his notoriety, by defeating about half a dozen popular private Members' Bills, which had wide support in the House and in the country?

Mr. Forth: I hope that I have contributed to defeating many rather disgusting private Members' Bills. Many of them were driven by equally disgusting interest groups outside the House. I would stand by that on any occasion.
I am not here to aid the process of legislation, which I regard as being almost inevitably inimical to the public interest. I wish to try to obstruct as much legislation as possible. Examples of good legislation are so few and far between and examples of bad legislation so legion that I consider it almost self-evident that it is the duty of a Member to try to prevent legislation rather than to encourage it.

Mr. David Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give examples of the good legislation?

Mr. Forth: I would find that so difficult that I would not want to waste either my time or that of anyone else.
The act of programming will be inimical to quality of legislation and to the role of Back-Bench Members. It will alter adversely the balance between the Executive and the legislature.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want to deal with programming and the role of Back-Bench Members. Both sides of the House—the Leader of the House and even my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—have talked about the agreement that can be reached through the usual channels on programming. Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate with me on the opportunity that genuine Back-Bench Members will have to influence the programming of legislation?

Mr. Forth: The mere mention of agreement between the Front Benches causes me great fear and trepidation. I hope that there will be few such agreements. If those agreements were to be made, I suspect that that would diminish yet further the role of Back-Bench Members, who after all are in the majority. There are far more Back-Benchers in the House than there are Members on the Government payroll or Front-Bench Members. It strikes me that anything that is arrived at by cosy consensus through the usual channels will be undesirable for Back Benchers.
It seems from much of what has been said that deferred Divisions are so patently absurd that they are barely worth discussing. It is worrying, however, that Members seem to be serious in their desire to have Divisions deferred. Some may accuse me occasionally of being slightly cynical about these matters, but it strikes me that the proposals contain at least the possibility that, were the Government to wish artificially to prolong debates so that votes could not take place before 10 o'clock, we could

quite easily find that Members would no longer be required to be in the House on a Monday or a Tuesday. Members could drift into the House, take part in some rather peculiar voting process and then leave.
In other words, we would be reducing the House, perhaps so that Labour Members could spend more time in their constituencies—I know not what. Members could turn up once a week and vote, probably on the basis of a list given to them by the Whips. They would not have been present for the debates and they would be unaware of the content of the issues. After voting, they could leave.
In the meantime, if there were doubts about the way in which Members would vote, they would be under pressure from the Whips or others, who would tell them how to vote as the voting day approached. I fear greatly for what the results of that might be. Perhaps the Government are not as clever, cynical or subtle as I have suggested and would not organise such a system. Perhaps unwittingly I have given them a tip. If we begin to consider the implications of the formal and systematic detaching of Divisions from debates, we shall take the House into difficult territory.
I believe that all the proposals are bad and that they should be opposed. I hope that the House does not approve them. However, having looked at the disposal of votes in the previous two Divisions, I fear that this is very much a Government versus the rest of the House matter. That is the most worrying feature of all. We see the massed ranks of Government Members coming into the House to vote these measures through, when the only beneficiary can be the Government. That is surely the final condemnation of the proposals.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words in this important debate and to take up some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I shall take a different line from his.
I am mindful of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that many Labour Members have not experienced opposition. I spent 14 years in opposition, and since then three and a half years as a Government Member. As for the right hon. Gentleman's other stricture, I would say that I am a fairly diligent Member. My attendance is fairly good and my voting record is as good as most Labour or Opposition Members'.
I support the Government's proposals because they are important steps forward in modernising the House and ensuring better scrutiny of legislation. We are not emphasising enough that the issues are not only about hours or a family-friendly working situation, although those are important factors. We are seeking to ensure that the House does its job better than it has done so far. The proposals before us could help to ensure that outcome.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) wants to debate other modernisation issues, as do I. He knows that I want us to consider the tabling of written questions during recesses, and there should be a five-year rolling programme under which legislation could be introduced at a steady pace throughout each year. Instead of a Queen's Speech every November or December, as is the case this year, there should be a time limit—perhaps of a year—within which legislation should complete its passage. There is a lot that we could do.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I would like every Friday sitting to be scrapped. There is uncertainty over when constituency Fridays will fall, which does not help Members who live away from London to plan their diaries and make arrangements. I am already booking Fridays to February next year—not for advice bureaux, which I hold every Saturday, but because people want me to fulfil constituency commitments such as meeting councillors, visiting companies and considering the problems of local schools.
Provincial Members would be helped if they could get out of Friday sittings altogether. At present, they are torn between being at the House for a vote on an important issue and fulfilling a constituency commitment. Private Members' legislation would be given a better crack of the whip if we dealt with it on Wednesday mornings and if facilities in the Chamber released by the Westminster Hall experiment were made available.
I am a strong supporter of the programming proposal, and regret what happened during the Modernisation Committee debate on it. We bent over backwards to reach a consensus, considered different drafts week after week and tried to reach agreement with Conservative Members and with the Liberals, who were more accommodating. We tried to meet Opposition Members' concerns and make a deal on what we proposed. It was not intended that the Modernisation Committee report should be favourable only to the Government. We wanted it to be favourable to the Opposition to ensure that the House scrutinised legislation better and that a fairer deal was provided. I worked hard to that end. I accept that the Opposition of today could be the Government of tomorrow. I said that in Romania to President Iliescu, who denounced me for it, but a few years later he was in opposition. I accept that changes are inevitable, although I hope that my hon. Friends and I will sit on this side of the House for a long time to come.
Programming would help the Government to plan their legislative timetable, but it would also ensure better scrutiny. Like me, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was a member of the Committee that considered the Transport Act 1985, and he used to groan when I, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) or one or two others rose to speak. During one sitting, even though I had only five words noted on my slip of paper, I was told that I had to speak for four hours. I managed four hours and 10 minutes. That night, we told the Government that we could progress to clause 7, however long that might take. We got to clause 7 at 2 o'clock the following afternoon and abandoned the sitting. That was nonsensical.
As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is now, I too have been a time waster. Members can make sensible contributions briefly and the programming proposal is about having meaningful debates. That night in Committee, I could have made my speech in 10 minutes, but we knew how much progress we would allow the Government to make. As he will remember, the 1985 Act contained a pensions clause relating to the National Bus Company, but we never managed to debate that burning issue because proceedings were guillotined. Once that had happened, the debate was under the Government's control and, even though Conservative

Members had remained silent for weeks, they suddenly began to make speeches to prevent Labour Members from contributing on what we considered to be important provisions.
The proposals represent a major step forward, and it was a tragedy that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), for whom I have great respect, produced a minority report out of the blue on the last day of proceedings in the Modemisation Committee. He made a contrary proposal, which we had to debate despite having worked for weeks to reach agreement, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and Labour members of the Committee leaned over backwards to try to reach a consensus. The timetabling proposal is sensible and will achieve much better debates.
There should also be time limits on speeches made in Committee, because it is nonsensical that Members can make long, boring and repetitive contributions that stray from the point. They return to order only when told to do so by the Chair.

Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that a Member who cannot make a cogent case in 10 or fewer minutes should not be in Parliament?

Mr. Pike: That is not necessarily always the case. However, on most issues most of us can make our case very clearly in 10 minutes. The timetabling proposal represents a sensible way forward and we should support it.
The voting proposal also represents a sensible move. Let us be absolutely realistic: it is nonsensical that six Opposition Members can force 250 or 350 Government Members to remain in the House. I accept that Labour Members have used such tactics, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst knows that I was involved with them a few years ago, but that does not make that right nor does it mean that we do not want to make progress in the 21st century. Does anyone believe that a vote involving six Opposition and 350 Government Members is not an insult to democracy?

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Pike: I shall not give way because I want to limit my speech to 10 minutes.
Electronic voting would improve the situation and I would welcome it. Furthermore, separating a debate from a vote is established practice. For example, that happens during the Queen's Speech debate, in Committee when groups of amendments are dealt with, and after the Budget, when a mass of votes takes place after a debate lasting several days. Let us not pretend that the majority of Members attend the Chamber to follow a debate—they might be at Standing or Select Committee sittings or dealing with their mail—and those who believe that the Whips will be able to apply more pressure are kidding themselves. Such a fear is irrelevant and unfounded, and Members who are not scrutinised as they walk across the Chamber to the Division Lobby and can vote on the Wednesday of the week following a debate will be better able to rebel and take their own line. The proposals are sensible and should be accepted. Let us move forward.

Sir George Young: I very much enjoyed my two years on the Modernisation Committee. Our discussions were largely constructive and good humoured, and we were agreeably chaired by the Leader of the House. To say that I led for the Opposition would be to overstate the case, as my hon. Friends on the Committee were impossible to lead, but I am grateful to them for their support in my minority report.
I say to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that the Conservatives on that Committee during the past three and a half years accepted quite a lot in the interests of unanimity and making progress, and we accepted recommendations that did not always find favour with our right hon. and hon. Friends. I regret that on this occasion, for the first time in the Committee's life, we were not able to produce an agreed report.
The report is wrong for three reasons. First, set in the context of the broader debate about the powers of the House versus the powers of the Executive, the report takes a decisive step in the wrong direction by giving more powers to the Executive. Secondly, in seeking to tackle late-night sittings—no one will be happier than I to see them go—the report ignores the real problem behind the congestion in the legislative programme. Thirdly, the proposal to defer votes is more likely to enhance cynicism than confidence in the political process.
Two debates are taking place this afternoon—one about modernisation and one about strengthening. I regard them as two circles which overlap in part. Where they overlap, all-party agreement can be obtained on measures which modernise and strengthen. Some of the recommendations already implemented fall into that shaded area—voluntary programming of Bills rather than guillotines, shorter speeches so that more hon. Members are called, and the carry-over of Bills from one Session to the next by agreement. All that was done by agreement, as has been the tradition when changing the rules.
Then there is a slightly separate agenda for strengthening, which is outside the modernisation circle. The report of the Liaison Committee, "Tilting the Balance", much of the Norton commission report which we debated before the recess, the work of the Hansard Society on accountability to be published next spring—those are all essentially about strengthening, rather than modernising.
Then there is the modernisation agenda, which is not primarily about strengthening, but simply bringing us up to date, much of which I agree with—the ability to buy fax paper and batteries as well as whisky and cigarettes in the Palace of Westminster, and finding a computer on my desk as well as a telephone. That is all part of the modernisation debate.
What we have today however is a proposal that, in the name of modernisation, actually weakens Parliament. The Opposition do not have many weapons, and the report invites us to put some of them beyond use, while the Government sit on their substantial arsenal.
The first proposal contains no recognition that the Government have a role to play in enabling more user-friendly hours by drafting their legislation better and by exercising some self-restraint in the legislative programme. Despite all the evidence in pages 31 to 36, the verdict is that the Opposition are guilty, not the Government. The report then extends to all Bills a

procedure that has not been properly tested and which has a number of defects. For example, if the Opposition parties agree a programme motion in good faith with the Government to focus debate on certain key issues, it is possible for Members to frustrate that intention by making longer contributions than they would if the Bill was not guillotined, or to focus on earlier groups of amendments so that later ones are not reached. As the report makes clear, that has already happened in the Northern Ireland legislation.
The proposed consultation in the report takes place only after, not before, the Queen's Speech is published. By that time, we may already have another over-programmed Session. The meaningful dialogue that the Government want may simply be impossible because the Opposition cannot validate an unacceptable timetable dictated by an over-ambitious legislative programme.
At the moment, we spend quite a lot of time after 10 o'clock dealing with Report and Third Reading. Where will the time come from if all discussion stops at 10? There are no answers in the report to that. The notion that once we pass these resolutions the Government will produce a series of perfectly drafted Bills is simply for the birds.
What made it impossible for me and my colleagues to go along with this section of the report was simply that the Government brought nothing to the negotiating table, as I made clear during our lengthy discussions. There is to be no discipline on the Government, just on the rest of us. For that reason, the section is unbalanced, inequitable and indefensible.
On the second proposal, I simply say that it takes the spontaneity out of the Chamber and will be widely seen as a cynical move, divorcing decision from discussion and promoting an even more mechanistic approach to decision making. On a practical note, I am happy to say that it will be a nightmare for the Government Whips to monitor. They will have to hang around the Lobbies like tipsters at a point-to-point, offering Members a marked card so that they can correctly place their bets.
In retrospect, it may have been inevitable that something like this should come out of the Modernisation Committee as currently configured. The Chairman of the Modernisation Committee is the Leader of the House, whose task as a member of the Cabinet is to deliver the Queen's Speech—she is its midwife. She winds up the debate on the Loyal Address and, every Thursday, she announces the business, which is inevitably dominated by the political imperative of getting the Bills through.
Is it right to entrust to a Committee under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House the responsibility for changing our rules? Has not the House traditionally done that? Does not the concept of a Select Committee chaired by a Cabinet Minister sit uneasily with the rationale of establishing Select Committees: to strengthen the House's ability to hold the Government to account?
The proposals are flawed and unbalanced and they derive from a flawed process. In the next Parliament, whoever wins, the House must change that process so that it can engage the Government on more equal terms.

Ms Harriet Harman: I rise to support the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House presented and the amendment


that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) tabled. I agree with the points that my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) made. I shall argue the case for those changes—and more—not only to make the House of Commons more effective but to make Parliament more family friendly.
Parliament has always changed its hours; they are not set in tablets of stone. It is time to change again. When I became a Member of Parliament in 1982, there were 635 Members. I was one of only 22 women; one of the 3 per cent. of women in Parliament at that time. Some hon. Members have argued that, long ago, there was a golden age when the House was much better. However, I contend that the House was much worse 20 years ago. My argument is not based on convenience, although that is an issue. It is a democratic argument.
When I became a Member of Parliament, the House was unrepresentative of women in this country. Ninety-seven per cent. of Members were men. That meant row after row of grey suits, and men talking to and sometimes shouting at other men. Women outside the House felt that Parliament had nothing to do with their lives, and they were right. I am proud that there are now more than 100 women Members, and that questions are asked about issues such as child care and balancing work and home. Such questions would have been impossible 20 years ago, but they are now mainstream. In scrutinising legislation, women raise points that were never made in a House that was almost all male.
Most women who become Members of Parliament have family responsibilities. They are mothers of young children and they are daughters of elderly parents. Being women, they often shoulder the lion's share of their family responsibilities. The fact that it is difficult for them to debate round the clock does not make them bad representatives. Far from it. It makes them essential to represent and demand change for all the women in this country whose lives are also a juggling act.
I am unimpressed by the argument, "You knew what the rules of the House were when you came here." My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) said that we are trying to change the terms and conditions on which we entered the House. To that, I say "Good." Many of us entered Parliament not to keep things as they are but to change them, to respect our traditions and our heritage but not to let them ossify.
Some who argue against change say that we should choose between Parliament and a family. That argument is objectionable. What sort of people would be Members of Parliament if a condition of entry was either not having a family or having one but not caring about it? What credibility would Parliament have on family issues if hon. Members dumped their concerns for their families at the door of the House? People do not want their representatives to be martyrs; as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, they want them to be human, like them.
There is no shame in arguing that Parliament should be family friendly. If we have mothers in the mother of Parliaments, Parliament must change to take that into account.
Some argue that we are simply trying to make life easy for ourselves and that we want to cut the hours. I do not want to cut the hours. I want to move them much further forward. We should start earlier as well as finish earlier—we should start at nine and finish at five—but I agree that London can be an expensive and sometimes a lonely place for people who are away from their home and families when they are in their constituencies. It is right that some of the facilities, such as the Library, meeting rooms and refreshment areas, could be kept open in the evening.
Some Members have argued that late hours equal effective opposition and that time is an effective weapon in the hands of an Opposition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, I have many years of experience in opposition. Most of my parliamentary life has been in opposition, as is the case with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who introduced the proposals, I have found myself doing my fair share of going through the night. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush: time is not an effective weapon. It is a macho game; it changes nothing.

Mr. Casale: We have discussed the matter on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend will know that I once thought that late-night sittings were a way to grind down the Executive. I now realise that I was wrong. They grind us down as legislators and prevent us from effectively discharging our parliamentary and constituency duties, especially if we have family responsibilities. Most important, they grind down the esteem of this place in the minds and eyes of the people who sent us here in the first place.

Ms Harman: I agree with all my hon. Friend's points, but the final point he makes is absolutely right. I give an example. When I was in the shadow health team and the current Foreign Secretary was shadow Secretary of State for Health—I was his deputy—we took the House through the night, opposing the opting out of NHS hospitals into NHS trusts. It was entirely pointless. Not one single hospital remained non-opted out as a result. However, when I was shadow Chief Secretary, the Opposition won the vote to stop value added tax on gas and electricity going from 8 to 17.5 per cent. We did that not by staying up all night, but by comprehensively winning the argument in the House and in the country. It is that on which successful opposition depends.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Perhaps I can give the hon. Lady a more up-to-date example. When she was Secretary of State for Social Security and there was a huge row on the Labour Benches about cuts to lone parent benefit, by deferring the vote for three or four days, would the rebellion have been greater or smaller?

Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that timing of votes or delay make a difference to the outcome and that that, of itself, is a weapon. I do not believe that anything that has happened since we have been in government has been changed by the tactics of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) or anyone else.
Some people have argued that we want to weaken the Opposition. That is absolutely not my case. It is important that we have strong, effective and credible opposition.


We all know that over-powerful Governments make mistakes—we need look only at rail privatisation and the poll tax. We need to find ways of making parliamentary scrutiny of legislation more effective.
That is one of the reasons why, when I was Secretary of State for Social Security and we embarked on the complex issue of pension sharing on divorce, we experimented by establishing pre-legislative scrutiny under the leadership of the Select Committee on Social Security—an all-party Committee, chaired by a member of the Opposition party. There are things that we can do to improve scrutiny. Staying up all night and using time as a weapon is not one of them.
Some have said that those of us who argue for family-friendly hours do not recognise that the situation is different for Members whose constituencies are outside London. I have always argued that we should start no earlier than we do now on Mondays, so that Members outside London have time to travel to Westminster. I have also always argued that we should start earlier and finish earlier on Thursdays, so that Members have a chance not only to do the work described by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley on Fridays, but to attend evening engagements in their constituencies on Thursdays. It is not acceptable for Members to have to be here all week, and then spend all their weekend on constituency business. That makes them exiles from their families. Again, I have always argued that it is wrong for the House to rise at the end of July and not return until mid-October, thereby ensuring that Scottish Members are in London when their children are on holiday and in Scotland when their children are back at school.
Much of what has been said today reflects a desire to return to some bygone golden era of an effective Parliament. Of course we should strive to enhance the authority, legitimacy and credibility of Parliament—otherwise Governments will always give in to the temptation to go over Parliament's head—but we shall not achieve that by moaning about others.
The Opposition are, I think, going through a transitional period. If there is a problem, it is not the fault of the "Today" programme, or even the fault of Ministers. Looking around for others to blame for a perceived loss of our own power is just a way of avoiding the challenge to us to change ourselves—and we have the power to make that change. It is for us to build a new credibility and authority for Parliament, enabling it to scrutinise legislation effectively and hold the Government to account. I believe we can best do that by moving forward—not looking back or clinging to the past, but creating a modern, efficient, daytime Chamber, and abandoning the old night-time ways of the gentlemen's club.

Sir Norman Fowler: I will be brief, because I know that others wish to speak.
These measures have been sold to us today on the grounds that they are new, that they are modern, and that they are all about modernising and reforming Parliament. I think that they are nothing of the kind. These measures are not being introduced for the convenience of Parliament, they will not make Parliament more accountable, and they are certainly not for the convenience of the Opposition.
The fact of the matter is that these measures will act for the convenience of the Government and Ministers, so that they can get their legislation through. They will act for the convenience of Ministers who will not have to spend as much time "tied up"—as their private offices would put it—in the House of Commons. I suspect that, above all, they are being introduced—as the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has just demonstrated—for the convenience of Government Members who, having spent every available hour trying to get elected to Westminster, evidently do not like the hours that operate at Westminster during the months when Parliament is actually sitting. The right hon. Lady did not quite make that point.
A number of conversions seem to have taken place. The most dramatic confession was the one that we heard a few moments ago, but let me remind the House that it was all very different when Labour was in opposition. The first Bill that I introduced—I was Minister of Transport at the time—was the one that became the Transport Act 1980. It was a manifesto measure, which denationalised the National Freight Corporation and reformed and abolished many traffic commissioner rules. Although it was, as I say, a manifesto measure, the then Opposition kept us in Committee for 110 hours, and there were 123 Divisions. At no stage did we introduce a guillotine.
The extraordinary backwoodsmen of the Opposition who took us through the night were Albert Booth, who was the chief spokesman, and his chief lieutenants, the present Deputy Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the former Health Secretary and an unsuccessful candidate for the post of London Mayor. They opposed the measure, wanted to subject it to line-by-line scrutiny and knew that by taking us on night and day they might find a chink in it. I do not object to that, as that is the purpose of opposition. If the then Opposition did not find the chink or defect, they could delay the Government's legislative programme, which is entirely legitimate.
The House must recognise that it is legitimate for the Opposition to do that. Ministers now talk about smoothing the progress of legislation, but we are not civil servants, and that is not our function. We are certainly not trying to run a business, although the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) tried to suggest that we were. We are Members of Parliament, and one of the jobs of Opposition Members is to oppose—which appears to come as a shock to certain Government Members, who seem to believe that a big majority gives them absolute power. That position was well understood by the Government when they were in opposition, in which role some of them were very good, including the late Bob Cryer, who was an excellent exponent of that art.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right to say that delaying the Government's legislative programme is a legitimate weapon of opposition. It is not the only weapon, but it is an important one. The Leader of the House says that Members of Parliament should decide what they want to focus on in debates in the House of Commons. However, the argument goes the other way, and Governments need


to focus on deciding which legislation they will introduce, which legislation they can get through the House and which legislation they can pass through Parliament.

Mr. Soley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not, as I have very little time.
Above all, the Government should not try to overload the system. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and anyone who has had any experience of government will know that at one end of Westminster are civil servants who have draft Bills in the bottom drawers of their desks and are waiting for a gullible Minister to come along and introduce those Bills. We all know that that happens, whether the Government are Labour or Conservative. At the other end of Westminster are politicians who are trying to introduce legislation that will be highly controversial with the public, but perhaps not so controversial with their party, or a faction of it.
It is a thoroughly good thing that the Opposition make the controllers of the legislative machine pause and introduce Bills that are necessary and a matter of priority. I therefore defend the Opposition's role in delaying legislation. We should be concerned, not about Parliament's hours or voting procedures, but about its status and position. I do not accept the Government's arguments on that, because above all, we should be concerned that Parliament is being marginalised by the Executive, and the Government are riding roughshod over the legitimate fears of the House. When I was shadow Home Secretary, I took part in debate after debate on the closed list voting system for the European elections. There was hardly a friend of the closed list on either side of the House, and hardly anyone, apart from the Home Secretary, spoke in favour of it. However, the legislation went through with massive majorities.
We should be concerned about such matters, and should be fundamentally anxious that so much political debate now takes place not in Parliament, but in the studios of John Humphrys and the brothers Dimbleby. If we had any sense, we would be debating such issues.
Although I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush—he made a good re-election speech, and I wish him well in his task—the voting method that we are introducing is best characterised as a comic opera, and it is being introduced simply to prevent—perish the thought—Members of Parliament from staying up past 10 o'clock at night.
We are also going to separate the debate from the Division. I think that that would be wrong. It is absurd to attempt to draw an analogy between that and the ballot for private Members' Bills.
Worse, we are going to introduce a system that fails even by its own standards. The system will produce not better, but worse legislation. It will also not reduce, but increase the volume of badly drafted legislation, for it will make it easier for the Government to pass their legislative programme by reducing scrutiny and making the Opposition's job more difficult. The only ones who will really rejoice are the Ministers who have to pass the legislation and the civil servants who have to prepare it.
As drafted and presented to the House, the proposals represent one more victory for the Executive over Parliament. The first speech that I made in the 1997 Parliament, before going into the shadow Cabinet, was on a guillotine motion. I said then that the Government were giving the impression by their actions that they were thinking:
We are the masters now.—[Official Report, 3 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 203.]
In the past three years, that impression has hardened and hardened. They are a Government who not only hate being held to account, but clearly resent the whole process. "Who are these MPs?" they seem to ask. "We have our majority. We will rule. Take it or leave it." The Leader of the House came very close to saying that in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
Ministers seem to believe that arrogant government is strong government. It is not. If there is one silver lining to this debate, it is that that quality of arrogance will finally bring down this Government.

Joan Ruddock: I am somewhat disappointed that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) should have made such a speech, as I remember him saying at one time that he sought to spend more time with his family.
I support the proposals, and I certainly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I can also tell the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that the Leader of the House certainly speaks for me. This is not a matter of the Government imposing something on their own Back Benchers or on anyone else, but a case of a Leader of this place listening to Back Benchers. That is what we have in modernisation, and that is what I have campaigned for in the 13 years for which I have been a Member. Although I wholeheartedly support the proposals, they are really very modest indeed.
Much has been made today of the issue of scrutiny. However, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out very clearly, based both on our own general observations and on our observations of Conservative Members, spending time debating is in no way equivalent to being effective in scrutiny. Many people try to speak in debates—this debate will be no different from all other debates in that respect—but, because of the length of some of the speeches, are unable to do so. That diminishes scrutiny. The arrogance of a few Opposition Members, from whom we have heard today, holds the House hostage and prevents the most effective deliberation. The whole House has to deal with their arrogance. The issue is not one of scrutiny.

Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Lady realise that there are many Opposition Members who, when they were Ministers, thought that time was a very useful weapon for the Opposition and that, at times, it was very well used? The reason why it works is that if one delays the Government and makes them think again and argue their case, they cannot rush through so much bodged legislation. It is important that the then Opposition did it to us, and it is equally important that we should do it to them.

Joan Ruddock: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly wasting his time, and has not been listening to the debate.


The examples given by Labour Members about the Government in which he served—such as rail privatisation and the poll tax—demonstrate that his point about the Opposition needing time is complete nonsense. Nothing is changed by using what he and others have described as their most potent weapon. The real scrutiny that should—and does, by and large—take place in the House happens in Standing Committees, during Question Time, when there are statements in the House, and, indeed, in Select Committees. We should look at how we can enhance the role of those procedures and the opportunities that they present. How many times have I attended Question Time and been unable to get in? How many times have I listened to a statement and been unable to get in? Those are the real frustrations of Back Benchers. We want the opportunity to express our views. We certainly do not want to sit here into the early hours of the morning listening to long speeches, primarily by Conservative Members.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joan Ruddock: No. This is a Back Benchers' debate. Proper scrutiny depends not on the length of speeches, but on their intellectual rigour. That intellectual rigour is often lacking, because of very wordy contributions and time-wasting tactics that are frequently employed by the Opposition.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who spoke immediately before my maiden speech just over a year ago, which I well remember. One reason that my constituency sent me here is that they wished me to be their man at Westminster, not Westminster's man in Eddisbury. According to my constituents, the value of debate is that it draws on the expertise of many who may not have a formal role in discussing the legislation concerned. That might take longer, so the debate continues into the night. My constituents also expect our debates to be illuminating and educative as well as combative. I hope that the hon. Lady takes that into account.

Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I wonder just how edifying his constituents found the debates that have taken place after midnight. I wonder how many of them actually read those debates or listen to them. Indeed, I wonder whether they have heard his speeches in the early hours of the morning. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes a poll of his constituents and finds out how many of them follow our deliberations in the House. Perhaps he should consult them before forming a view. I have consulted my constituents, and I know that they do not follow the procedures of the House. They do not identify with the people here and the nonsense that they feel is talked.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said that the principles of democracy would be buried tonight.

Mr. Ian Pearson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that a lot of people out there could not give a monkey's about what we do late at night. I have a great deal of sympathy for family friendly policies, but I do not want to jeopardise the traditions of parliamentary scrutiny. I should like changes that will improve scrutiny, and be more family friendly.

My hon. Friend has to decide what comes first if there is a conflict. Does she believe that any of tonight's proposals are conflicting? Some of us do.

Joan Ruddock: Let me answer that question directly. I do not have the slightest doubt that programming legislation must come first. If we programme legislation, we can make many of the changes that he and I seek, but without programming we cannot make sense of our procedures. People cannot follow our procedures because they are so cumbersome and impossible to understand. Indeed, few people will have understood tonight's debate.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Joan Ruddock: No. I must make progress as others are waiting to speak.
What is the principle of democracy that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks suggested would be buried tonight? I suggest that the only principle at stake here is the principle that one, two or three people can hold the House to ransom. That is the reality of what happens here.
Since April, there have been 78 sittings days. On a quarter of those days, the House sat after midnight. During July, our finishing times included 12.10 am, 1.27 am, 3.4 am, 1.44 am, 3.26 am, and 3.50 am. What do people outside the House think about those who sit up until those hours talking and talking to themselves when no one is listening? That is not scrutiny. It is simple arrogance on the part of those who can hold us here. Hansard records that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) rose to his feet more than 400 times during that period. There is an unsurprising correlation between his getting to his feet and the hour until which the House was detained.
Many of us want to go much further than the proposals before us tonight. Our experience is that the House does not carry out the most effective possible scrutiny at present. Our constituents do not enjoy following the House because they cannot understand what is going on. Having more time means more time for time wasting. There is much scope for improvement, and our experience is that there is no satisfactory way in which to contribute.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) complained about long holidays. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked why we did not vote in the mornings. Many of us would support a different parliamentary year. Many of us would support returning much sooner. Many of us would support a different daily schedule, with an earlier start. Most of us would support the strictest time limits on speeches, from Front and Back Benches alike.
We do not want fewer hours. All of us are hard workers who came here prepared to do our best for our constituents. We want more efficiency and more effectiveness. Programming legislation will offer that. We shall know much more clearly what we are doing and when. It will provide greater focus, enabling us to move modernisation forward.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Strict time limits on speeches?

Joan Ruddock: I have been interrupted many times and have taken 10 minutes. I propose to stop now.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talked of the status of Parliament. We can improve that status if we accept the motions and proceed further with modernisation to bring Parliament into the 21st century.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I agree with some of the final words spoken by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who quoted the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on the status of Parliament. I have become profoundly sad as I have listened to speeches from those on the Labour Benches. Labour Members are the dupes of the Executive. They have been conned into believing that what is being proposed will enhance their status and the effectiveness of the House of Commons, but it will have quite the opposite effect.
I am not one of those who enjoys late nights. I do not believe that our hours are immutable. We have changed the hours of Parliament many times over the centuries. I am not in favour of long speeches about very little, but I profoundly believe that this place has a prime duty to hold the Executive to account, no matter from which party that Executive come.
I was once described as a thorn in the side of the Thatcher Administration.

Mr. Redwood: You were, indeed.

Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend confirms that I was indeed. In being so, I believed that I was fulfilling my prime role as a Back Bencher. On occasions, I could not have done so without resorting to the weapon of time.
When the measure to abolish the Greater London council was being put through by the Thatcher Government, I opposed it because I did not believe that London should be deprived of a strategic authority. I said that we would be landed with something worse in due course and, by Jove, I have been proved right. At that time, I said that we should not take powers to ourselves that we would not wish others to have. Labour Members should ponder on that. They are taking powers to themselves through these measures that they will find extremely uncomfortable when they sit on the Opposition Benches—if a Conservative Government were misguided enough to renew this sort of Sessional Orders.
Programming is one thing and I am not against it. [Interruption.] I am not against it in all circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) makes some good points in his admirable pamphlet on the matter and I can associate myself with much of what he says. In an intervention, I said that if there is to be programming, there also has to be rationing of legislation. The more legislation we have, the less helpful programming is to anyone other than the Executive.
The Modernisation Committee, chaired by a totally honourable Chairman—the Leader of the House—has become the creature of the Government. It has abandoned the principle of consensus in its report. All the other issues that it has put before the House have been based on

consensus. I was one of the first members of the Committee and I was involved in some of those proposals—I was happy to be so. When I sat on the Conservative Front Bench and supported, first, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and then my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I was happy to support a number of the Committee's proposals. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, knows that to be true.
However, it was a parliamentary tragedy when the principle of consensus was abandoned to get this proposal before the House before the end of this Session. The sort of programming that we are being offered tonight will give power to one group of people—the Executive.
I have been in the House for 30 years. In that time, the balance has moved inexorably away from Parliament—the legislature—towards the Executive. In the past three years, that process has been accelerated and has diminished the House, making it less effective. More than anything else, that has been responsible for reducing the esteem in which the House is held by constituents of the hon. Member for Deptford, and constituents of mine and of many other hon. Members.
The proposal is inimical to true parliamentary sovereignty, in which I believe. It will concentrate power over legislation entirely in the hands of the Executive. The frank exchanges that took place this afternoon between my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and the Leader of the House demonstrated that. The right hon. Lady said in effect, "We'll discuss matters with the Opposition if they want to talk about it. If not, we'll do it just the same." That was a revealing exchange.
I do not want to make a long speech—I believe in short speeches—but I must say a few words about the ridiculous order on deferred voting. If the Modernisation Committee had proposed that we could vote in the proper way at 9 am the next morning on certain matters debated late at night, I would have considered that a sensible way forward.
This football coupon-type voting on a Wednesday is inimical to our freedom as Back Benchers. The intervening period allows enormous opportunity for the Whips, on both sides of the House, to influence the vote. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Deptford may laugh. She has not been here all that long—she may think she has, but she has not. It is an arrogant laugh. She believes that the proposal she is supporting will somehow make Parliament more family friendly, and, in the process, make it more effective. It will do neither. Whether the hon. Lady likes it or not, she has become a pawn in the hands of the Leader of the House. She has succumbed to the blandishments of the Government and is writing off her powers as a Back Bencher in the process.

Joan Ruddock: rose—

Ms Glenda Jackson: rose—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Both hon. Ladies are writing off those powers.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has argued for a change—a shortened legislative programme—but he is


not alone among his Opposition colleagues in arguing that an Opposition's only weapon is time and that, whatever the length of the legislative programme, the first requirement of an Opposition is to use that weapon of time to attempt to delay Government legislation. What has clearly emerged from the arguments made by Conservative Members this evening is that they are actually concerned not with power—either in government or in opposition—but with their inability to exercise their power as an Opposition with any responsibility at all.
All this smoke and mirrors on voting is absurd. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he has never seen other Members dashing breathless for a Division, asking the Whips which Lobby they should be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Lady had already made a speech.

Ms Jackson: It was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I was about to ask the hon. Lady if she would give way, Mr. Speaker. I must respond to the point that she made, but I shall probably not have time to give way to the hon. Member for Deptford.

Joan Ruddock: Will the hon. Member give way?

Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I am trying to respond to the inordinately long intervention made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). It showed that the hon. Lady has completely misunderstood what has been said in the debate. Neither I nor any of my hon. Friends have argued that time is the only weapon, nor that time is the most important factor under discussion. It is a weapon that can and should be used legitimately—albeit sparingly—both by Opposition and Government Back Benchers. I make no apology for the fact that I have used it in government and in opposition.
My fundamental criticism of the measures is that they erode the general powers of the legislature vis-a-vis the Executive. Like other Members, I have often quoted Dunning's 1780 motion:
The influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
The power of the Executive has increased inordinately, especially during the past three years; it is increasing and it ought to be diminished.
The effect of the measures will be to increase the stranglehold of the Executive at the expense of the rest of the Members of the House. It is for that reason that I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against the motions.

Mr. Frank Doran: This debate offers me my first opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
I speak in favour of the programming of Bills and in favour of the motions introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I was especially interested in the points made by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), in a fairly waspish speech. She even went so far as to imply that the Conservatives had nothing to do with the

scuppering of previous changes introduced by the Labour Government in 1966. She referred to the Crossman diaries.
During the 35 years in which the Conservatives held power since the second world war, they made only two constitutional changes of any significance. They introduced the modern form of Select Committees, on which they should be congratulated, and they signed the Maastricht treaty. Apart from that, they have opposed almost every proposal for change. Such opposition is exactly what we have heard tonight from every Conservative Member in the Chamber. They oppose a fairly modest scheme.
My own views reflect some of the points made by my colleagues, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). That will come as no surprise to hon. Members, but we have to start somewhere.
The Conservatives have opposed everything. It seems from the speeches we have heard tonight that Conservative Members have not adjusted to opposition.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Doran: I do not think that I should, because the Front-Bench spokesmen wish to speak. I shall have to ditch most of what I intended to say.
I want to say something about the changes that I have seen in this place since I became a Member in 1987. There has been a variety of substantial changes. We have seen the first woman Speaker; she was also the first working-class Speaker. You, Mr. Speaker, are the first Catholic Speaker since the reformation, and the first not to use the wig. We do not spy "strangers" any more, and we have got rid of the blessed hat, which is great progress. However, none of those changes is of real substance because the major problem is one of credibility. One of the main contributory factors in our lack of credibility is the ridiculous way in which we work.
I have heard Labour and Opposition Members talk about how they behaved in opposition. When I first entered the House in 1987, I was no different from any of my colleagues in opposition. I believed that the best way to oppose the then Government was to waste time by speaking. I was a member of many Committees, and I could bore for Britain. I did not quite reach the dizzy heights of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) with four hours and 10 minutes, but I operated in exactly the same way. I accepted it as the norm until I became a member of the energy Opposition Front-Bench team.
On the Bill to privatise the electricity industry, I saw constructive opposition for the first time. We decided to prepare our timetable and work to it. We ran the Government ragged. We made sure that they could not keep up with the amendments that we had tabled. We made sure that every important issue that we wanted to have debated was debated.
We have seen nothing from this Conservative Opposition. Everything is done with the sledgehammer of talking us through the night. [Interruption.] I am being urged to complete my speech. Before I finish, I want to include a personal anecdote about the impact of our hours. They have had a serious effect on the way we all function. They have a serious effect on many lives.
I asked the Library today to dig out the figures for the number of Members of the House who have died. Since 1989, 48 Members have died. We have had to cope recently with the death of Donald Dewar. A lot of that death toll is to do with the stress and pressures arising from the occupation that we have all chosen to follow. There are many other names; I will not go through the list. There have been five deaths a year. Only three were not the result of natural causes. That is a serious statement to which we should all have regard.
The sittings of the House may not start until 2.30 pm, but the rest of the world starts work at least five and a half hours earlier. If I am to meet the people whom I need to meet to do my job properly, I have to conform to their working hours. Then I have to be here in the House on most business days until 10.15 pm or later and sometimes through the night, as we have heard from previous speakers.
The culture that we have allowed to develop in the House is unforgiving. We have an ethos which is not very different from the mediaeval joust. For some of us, a joust would be just as brutal and devastating in its consequences. It is time that we changed our working practices to meet the needs of the 21st century and the much increased demands on Members of the House. Victorian rules met Victorian needs. In the 21st century, we need to introduce rules and hours that reflect the demands made of Members today.

Mr. Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the programming of Bills motion, paragraph (2)(b) of order B and paragraph (3)(b) of order C give you the power to appoint up to eight members of the Programming Committee and seven members of the Programming Sub-Committees. Will you appoint members according to the current balance of political parties, or will you ensure that no party has an overall majority and the Chairman of Ways and Means has a casting vote?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the House agrees the orders.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Contrary to the opinion of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), the Minister and I decided to confine our remarks to 10 minutes each, but the programming of this debate seems to have gone astray, which is perhaps inauspicious for future agreements.
This has been a fascinating debate, but a depressing one. It is clear why the Modernisation Committee was not able to reach agreement. There is a massive philosophical difference between the approach taken by Conservative Members and that taken by Labour Members.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) all made powerful speeches about respecting the traditions of the House and about the ability of the Opposition to oppose. The impression conveyed by the speeches of Labour Members was that they were matters to which they accorded very little account. Indeed, many of them gave the impression that they were converts, had had

a road to Damascus experience and had changed their habits now that they suddenly were Government and not Opposition Back Benchers.
The issue is important, because we are discussing the destruction of convention. [Interruption.] I hear the word "Good", but the hon. Member for Ealing. Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) made the point that the House established its reputation in the 19th century as an independent Chamber because of its ability to debate. Ultimately, that was because of the then Governments' willingness to allow debates to take place. There was little difference between then and now in that Members of Parliament made perorations late at night. Many Members then were similar to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and saw themselves as performing a role, and they were respected by the Government for that. Members took the view that, if they did not carry out that role, proper parliamentary government was not possible and that if parliamentary government was not respected, the decisions taken in the House would not be respected by those outside who were adversely affected by them.
I have listened to Labour Members and they seem to suggest that if one simply has a vote and a majority, one can do whatever one likes. The consequences of that have been well reflected in the past few weeks when people driving lorries have parked them and protested outside Parliament because this place has ceased to command respect as it is not where difficult issues can be discussed. That is not more important but it is as important as our ability to scrutinise legislation properly. The measure tends against our ability to scrutinise properly and it is clearly against our ability to be regarded as a place where difficult issues can be aired and people with different points of view can be respected.
I shall try to be brief to give the Minister time to respond, but I come now to the issue of timetabling. Conservative Members are perfectly prepared to consider the possibility of trying to arrange for timetabling. Indeed, the minority report that was produced in the Modernisation Committee recommended that we should try to arrange timetabling as much as possible. However, what is the point of the House surrendering something that Back-Bench Members can use to have an impact in holding the Government to account when the Government have not made a single concession towards giving up power to allow timetabling to take place?
We can have timetabling but, under these measures, if the Government decide that they want to alter a timetabling motion and want to behave in the way they did on the passage of the legislation—bad legislation, badly passed—after the Omagh bombing, they can do whatever they like. The Government have made no concessions either to a Speaker's Conference or to any other mechanism that would give the House an independent voice on how timetabling could take place.
We remain completely at the Government's mercy, and, having listened to the contributions from many Labour Members, it is clear that we will not find among them the independent voices that alone will prevent the Government from abusing their powers in that respect. That is the central reason why the House should reject the motion on timetabling. It is not as though there is no need for sensible timetabling or for a review of the hours that the House might sit—although there is no mention of that in the report.
The hon. Member for Deptford said that she wanted Back Benchers to have more opportunities to participate in questions to Ministers, but nothing in the report will provide that. When will time be made available if the Government do not volunteer to review the timetable? When, in late-night business, which I shall address in more detail in a moment, will there be opportunities to hold the Government to account?
The timetable motion is a device by which Members surrender power to the Government. It gives the Government an extra ratchet that will allow them to say in future that the convention that Members are given time to discuss business went out long ago. Far from our benefiting from such motions, we will find that the Government will use their existing powers to take more time for discussion away from us whenever they want to.
On deferred votes, I think that we are moving into the land of fantasy. Late at night we consider, for the most part, secondary legislation. As a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I know that if ever anything is poorly considered in the House, it is secondary legislation. Late at night is the one time that we have for proper debate of such legislation, which sometimes deals with highly contentious issues. I am thinking of a number of Northern Ireland orders, on which there may have been consensus between Government Members and the official Opposition, but Members from Northern Ireland held very different views.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Where are they?

Mr. Grieve: Well, precisely. Attendance will be much more difficult for Northern Ireland Members, some of whom have other duties in the Northern Ireland Assembly, if they have to come to this House for debates and then return on another day to vote.
My hon. Friends have made the valid point that separating the process of decision making from the voting process, especially for debates of only one and a half hours, will degrade the status of the House. It will remove the chance that one's vote could be influenced when matters are fresh in one's mind, and it will prevent the Chamber from being a focus for any informed or sensible debate in which people can be influenced by what is said.
One thing that I have learned since I came to the House is that if one bothers to spend six hours on the Benches listening to a debate, one learns an enormous amount, usually from one's opponents. The central and most critical point about the parliamentary process is that it makes what is otherwise unpalatable acceptable by the process of debate. That is being attacked by the motions, not because modernising and improving our procedures is not good, but because we are approaching the issues from completely the wrong angle.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): This is, of course, a House matter, and colleagues will decide individually how we should proceed. During this important debate it has become clear that there is no unanimity of view; indeed, my hon. Friends have made it clear that they will vote differently. I welcome that—it is healthy.
In 1902, Balfour remarked that he had never been able to understand
why of all His Majesty's subjects a Member of Parliament should be the one who never knows when he is to dine or when he is to sleep.
Important issues are raised in debates: Members discuss whether they should press schedule 1 and whether, during the debate, they have considered the matter enough; they ask whether the candlestick makers and the bell makers have been consulted. I see that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is listening, and those are the tactics that he employs on occasion. I do not blame him for that—it is called throwing grit into the machine. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) will recognise that phrase because it comes from his pamphlet. There is a great deal of activity in such debates, but no achievement. All that activity and all the time expended does not prevent the Government from dealing with our business; we can impose a guillotine to do that. As has been pointed out, Governments of all colours do just that. All that time-wasting does is to reduce us to the state of the Member who, in 1902 was reported as being
so unoccupied that he was knitting a pair of stockings in the smoking-room.—[Official Report, 20 February 1902; Vol. 103, c. 663.]
Our proposals in response to the Modernisation Committee report are designed to ensure that Members will know when they are to sleep, but that that should not be at the expense of proper examination of legislation or proper debate of motions.
The proposals are not new. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear at the outset, they have a long parliamentary history. In 1985, the Procedure Committee recommended that Bills be programmed in Standing Committee, and even at later stages. Jopling confirmed that position in 1992. At the beginning of this Parliament, the Modernisation Committee recommended programming, and most recently, both the Hansard Society and the Norton commission have suggested it.
Programming provides something for everyone: the Government know when they will get their business through, should the House agree it; the Opposition have the power to determine the terms of debate and to choose what will be dealt with in prime time; and all of us get some certainty about our working hours. Being able to plan leads to better use of our time and greater efficiency of our work.
The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst are designed totally to undermine the Modernisation Committee's proposals. The Government's motions allow a reasonable period for debate on the proposed timetable: three quarters of an hour for the main programme motion and half an hour for motions on the details proposed by the programming committee or sub-committee. It is true that the allocation is not as generous as that, in theory, for a guillotine, but unlike the guillotine, debate on the programme motion will not eat into time for debating the substantive business. Amendment (d) would reverse such a process: three hours would be spent debating the programme motion, and many of us would spend our time in the Smoking Room knitting our socks.
Strangely, given her very different views, amendment (g), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and a significant group


of colleagues, would also reduce the amount of time for debate. Half an hour would be lost from Second Reading. I take the view that debates on Second Reading have a high profile. All too often, colleagues who wish to speak on Second Reading are denied the opportunity through lack of time. Several of my hon. Friends have explained forcefully why they support the amendment. Indeed, the Modernisation Committee considered the issue very carefully. It has merit, but I think that the Committee reached the right conclusion in protecting the traditional length of debates on Second Reading.
I should say directly to my hon. Friends that the proposed Sessional Orders on which we are to vote shortly are indeed Sessional Orders. There will be an opportunity to review how they are used, and we shall see how hon. Members on both sides of the House use them. For my part, I hope to see a consensus and a positive use of our time. Just as the House is tonight reviewing its procedures, there will be the opportunity to do so again in 12 months' time.
I turn briefly to the issue of much controversy: deferred Divisions. It would be possible to hold deferred Divisions in the normal way on a Wednesday, as set out in amendment (d). Yes, the traditional way has its adherents, but it is important to remember the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made when she said that we have made it clear that the stand-alone issues to go to sittings on Wednesdays will be relatively uncontentious. I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) focused on that point.
If the House decides to implement the reforms, we shall have much more orderly processing of business. It will be appreciated that the Government will have to introduce legislation in better order and perhaps in less quantity. Once we are able to predict the amount of legislation, we might be able to look at longer-term issues. We will be able to look, for example, at the timetable for the recess dates and the parliamentary calendar. I cannot promise that all that will flow from the experiment, but I can promise that it will be impossible to do that if we do not proceed with these issues tonight. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will support the Modernisation Committee's proposals.

Amendment proposed: After section A (10), at end insert—
'(11) On a day on which a programme motion is to be moved, the Speaker shall put the Question on a second reading of the bill to which that Motion applies not later then 9.30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and 6.30 p.m. on Thursdays'.—[Mrs. Anne Campbell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 253.

Division No. 323]
[10 pm



AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Banks, Tony


Ainger, Nick
Barren, Kevin


Alexander, Douglas
Begg, Miss Anne


Allan, Richard
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Berry, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blackman, Liz


Atkins, Charlotte
Blears, Ms Hazel


Baker, Norman
Blizzard, Bob


Ballard, Jackie
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul





Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Kemp, Fraser


Bradshaw, Ben
Kidney, David


Brake, Tom
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Brand, Dr Peter
Kingham, Ms Tess


Browne, Desmond
Lammy, David


Burden, Richard
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Butler, Mrs Christine
Lepper, David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Linton, Martin


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
McCabe, Steve


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
McCafferty Ms Chris


Casale, Roger
Macdonald, Calum


Caton, Martin
McDonnell, John


Cawsey, Ian
McFall, John


Chaytor, David
McIsaac, Shona


Church, Ms Judith
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Clapham, Michael
MacShane, Denis


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
McWalter, Tony


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Mallaber, Judy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Clwyd, Ann
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Coaker, Vernon
Maxton, John


Colman, Tony
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Connarty, Michael
Moffatt, Laura


Cooper, Yvette
Moore, Michael


Cousins, Jim
Moran, Ms Margaret


Cox, Tom
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Mountford, Kali



Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Davidson, Ian
Oaten, Mark


Dean, Mrs Janet
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Organ, Mrs Diana


Dowd, Jim
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Drown, Ms Julia
Palmer, Dr Nick


Edwards, Huw
Perham, Ms Linda


Flint, Caroline



Flynn, Paul
Plaskitt, James


Follett, Barbara
Pollard, Kerry


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Prosser, Gwyn


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Maria
Quinn, Lawrie


Gapes, Mike
Rammell, Bill


Gardiner, Barry
Rendel, David


Gibson, Dr Ian
Ruane, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A
Ruddock, Joan


Goggins, Paul
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Savidge, Malcolm


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Sawford, Phil


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Sheerman, Barry


Grogan, John
Singh, Marsha


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Harvey, Nick
Soley, Clive


Healey, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Hinchliffe, David
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Hurst, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Illsley, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Jenkins, Brian
Timms, Stephen


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Trickett, Jon


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Tynan, Bill


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Walley, Ms Joan


Keetch, Paul
Ward, Ms Claire






White, Brian
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Woodward, Shaun
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Frank Doran.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Allen, Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Etherington, Bill


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Evans, Nigel


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Fabricant, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fearn, Ronnie


Baldry, Tony
Flight, Howard


Barnes, Harry
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Beard, Nigel
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beggs, Roy
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fraser, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gale, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Betts, Clive
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Blunt, Crispin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Body, Sir Richard
Gibb, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Green, Damian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Greenway, John


Brady, Graham
Grieve, Dominic


Brazier, Julian
Grocott, Bruce


Breed, Colin
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, Rt Hon William


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Burnett, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burns, Simon
Hammond, Philip


Burstow, Paul
Hancock, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hawkins, Nick


Caplin, Ivor
Heald, Oliver


Cash, William
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Heppell, John



Hill, Keith


Chidgey, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Chope, Christopher
Hood, Jimmy


Clappison, James
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Hoyle, Lindsay


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Collins, Tim
Jamieson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jenkin, Bernard


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cotter, Brian,
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cran, James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cranston, Ross
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Key, Robert


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Curry, Rt Hon David
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lansley, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Laxton, Bob


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Letwin, Oliver


Dawson, Hilton
Levitt, Tom


Day, Stephen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Drew, David
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
Livsey, Richard


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)





Llwyd, Elfyn
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lock, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Loughton, Tim
Shepherd, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Snape, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spellar, John


McNulty, Tony
Spicer, Sir Michael


McWilliam, John
Spring, Richard


Madel, Sir David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maples, John
Steen, Anthony


Martlew, Eric
Streeter, Gary


Mates, Michael
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Stunell, Andrew


May, Mrs Theresa
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Swayne, Desmond


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Syms, Robert


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot



Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tipping, Paddy


Norman, Archie
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Townend, John


O'Hara, Eddie
Trend, Michael


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Öpik, Lembit
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ottaway, Richard
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Page, Richard
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Paterson, Owen
Tyler, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Tyrie, Andrew


Pendry, Tom
Viggers, Peter


Pickthall, Colin
Walter, Robert


Pike, Peter L
Wardle, Charles


Pope, Greg
Wareing, Robert N


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, Sir Raymond
Webb, Steve


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wells, Bowen


Prior, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Randall, John
Whittingdale, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wilkinson, John


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Willis, Phil


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roy, Frank
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ruffley, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Russell, Bob (Colchester)



St Aubyn, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. James Gray.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 137.

Division No. 324]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Allen, Graham


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Alexander, Douglas
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Allan, Richard
Ashton, Joe






Atherton, Ms Candy
Drew, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Drown, Ms Julia


Baker, Norman
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Ballard, Jackie
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Banks, Tony
Edwards, Huw


Barron, Kevin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beard, Nigel
Etherington, Bill


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Fearn, Ronnie


Begg, Miss Anne
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Flint, Caroline


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Follett, Barbara



Foster Don (Bath)


Berry, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Betts, Clive
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blackman, Liz
Foulkes, George


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fyfe, Maria


Blizzard, Bob
Gapes, Mike


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, Barry


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brake, Tom
Gidley, Sandra


Brand, Dr Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A


Browne, Desmond
Goggins, Paul


Burden, Richard
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burnett, John
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burstow, Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grogan, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hancock, Mike



Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harvey, Nick


Caplin, Ivor
Healey, John



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Casale, Roger
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Caton, Martin
Heppell, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hill, Keith


Chaytor, David
Hinchliffe, David


Chidgey, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Church, Ms Judith
Hood, Jimmy


Clapham, Michael
Hope, Phil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Coaker, Vernon
Illsley, Eric


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Colman, Tony
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cotter, Brian



Cousins, Jim
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunningham Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Keeble, Ms Sally


Cunningham Jim (Cov'try S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Keetch Paul


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kemp, Fraser


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kidney, David


Davidson, Ian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dawson, Hilton
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lady man, Dr Stephen


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Lammy, David


Doran, Frank
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Dowd, Jim
Laxton, Bob





Lepper, David
Rendel, David


Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Linton, Martin
Roy, Frank


Livsey, Richard
Ruane, Chris


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruddock, Joan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lock, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Love, Andrew
Salmond, Alex


McAvoy, Thomas
Sanders, Adrian


McCabe, Steve
Savidge, Malcolm


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sawford, Phil


Macdonald, Calum
Shaw, Jonathan


McDonnell, John
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Singh, Marsha


McIsaac, Shona
Skinner, Dennis


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


MacShane, Denis
Snape, Peter


Mactaggart, Fiona
Soley, Clive


McWalter, Tony
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWilliam, John
Spellar, John


Mallaber, Judy
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Martlew, Eric
Stinchcombe, Paul


Maxton, John
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Merron, Gillian
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stunell, Andrew


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moffatt, Laura



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mullin, Chris
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Oaten, Mark
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Hara, Eddie
Tyler, Paul


Olner, Bill
Tynan, Bill


Öpik, Lembit
Vis, Dr Rudi


Organ, Mrs Diana
Walley, Ms Joan


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Ward, Ms Claire


Palmer, Dr Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Pearson, Ian
Webb, Steve


Pendry, Tom
White, Brian


Perham, Ms Linda
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pike, Peter L
Willis, Phil


Plaskitt, James
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pollard, Kerry
Wood, Mike


Pond, Chris
Woodward, Shaun


Pope, Greg
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Prosser, Gwyn
Wyatt, Derek


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce



Quinn, Lawrie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rammell, Bill
Mr. David Jamieson and


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Mr. Mike Hall.






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jenkin, Bernard


Amess, David
Key, Robert


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Baldry, Tony
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Barnes, Harry
Lansley, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Letwin, Oliver


Bercow, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lidington, David


Blunt, Crispin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Boswell, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brady, Graham
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brazier, Julian
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Breed, Colin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Madel, Sir David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maples, John


Burns, Simon
Mates, Michael


Butterfill, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cash, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
May, Mrs Theresa



Nicholls, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Clappison, James
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Page, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Paterson, Owen



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Powell, Sir Raymond


Collins, Tim
Prior, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Randall, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Robathan, Andrew


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ruffley, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)



Day, Stephen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Duncan Alan
St Aubyn, Nick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Sayeed, Jonathan



Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Shepherd, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Evans, Nigel



Fabricant, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Flight, Howard
Spring, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Steen, Anthony


Fraser, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Gale, Roger
Swayne, Desmond


Garnier, Edward
Syms, Robert


Gibb, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Townend, John


Greenway, John
Trend, Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Tyrie, Andrew


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Walter, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Wardle, Charles


Hammond, Philip
Waterson, Nigel


Hawkins, Nick
Wells, Bowen


Heald, Oliver
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hopkins, Kelvin
Whittingdale, John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wilkinson, John





Willetts, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. James Gray.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That in the next Session of Parliament Orders A to I below shall have effect:

A. Programme Motions

(1) If, before Second Reading of a Bill, notice of a motion providing for—

(a) committal of the Bill, and
(b) an allocation of time to proceedings in Committee on the Bill,
is given by a Minister of the Crown, the motion may be made immediately after Second Reading and Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills) shall not apply to the Bill.

(2) Such a motion is to be called a programme motion.

(3) An order made by the House as the result of a programme motion is to be called a programme order.

(4) A motion to vary or supplement a programme order is also to be called a programme motion.

(5) The question on a programme motion to vary or supplement a programme order shall be put forthwith unless paragraph (7) applies.

(6) Otherwise, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion shall be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

(7) This paragraph applies to a programme motion to—

(a) reduce the amount of time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on the Bill (whether or not it also increases the amount of time allocated for other proceedings on the Bill);
(b) bring forward the date on which the Bill is to be reported to the House in accordance with a programme order; or
(c) add to the proceedings to which a programme order applies.

(8) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted Business) applies to proceedings on a programme motion.

(9) Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of Time) does not apply to a programme motion.

(10) If a programme order applies to a Bill, neither Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) nor Standing Order No. 120 (Business Sub-Committee) applies to the Bill.

B. Programming Committees

(1) This order applies if a Bill is subject to a programme order which makes provision for proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and Third Reading.

(2) There is to be a Committee for the Bill consisting of—

(a) the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is to be Chairman of the Committee); and
(b) not more than eight other Members, nominated by the Speaker.

(3) The Committee is to be called the Programming Committee.

(4) The quorum of the Programming Committee is four.

(5) The Programming Committee shall—

(a) consider the allocation of periods of time to such of the proceedings in Committee of the whole House (or on consideration and Third Reading) as it thinks appropriate to designate; and
(b) report any resolution which it makes to the House.

(6) On a motion being made in the House in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

(7) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the Bill.

(8) Proceedings on a motion made under paragraph (6) may be entered upon and decided, though opposed, at any hour.

(9) Resolutions of the Programming Committee—

(a) may be reported from time to time; and
(b) subject to the powers of the Speaker or Chairman to select the amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which designated proceedings on the Bill are to be taken.

C. Programming Sub-Committees

(1) If a Bill is subject to a programme order which commits it to a Standing Committee, the order stands referred to the Committee and shall be considered by a sub-committee of the Committee.

(2) The sub-committee is to be called the Programming Sub-Committee.

(3) The Programming Sub-Committee shall consist of—

(a) the Chairman or one of the Chairmen of the Committee (who is to be chairman of the sub-committee); and
(b) seven members of the Committee, nominated by the Speaker.

(4) The quorum of the Programming Sub-Committee is four.

(5) The Programming Sub-Committee shall report to the committee any resolution which it makes about—

(a) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in the Committee;
(b) the allocation of the proceedings to each sitting;
(c) the time at which any proceedings, if not previously concluded, are to be brought to a conclusion.

(6) On a motion being made in the Committee in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

(7) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the Bill.

(8) Resolutions of the Programming Sub-Committee—

(a) may be reported from time to time; and
(b) subject to the powers of the Chairman to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings are to be taken.

D. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House

(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Chairman shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others—

(a) any question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;
(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chairman for separate division;
(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Chairman shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.

(5) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those provisions.

(6) On conclusion of the proceedings in a Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill (or such of the Bill's provisions as were committed to it) to the House without putting any question.

E. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration or third reading

(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration and Third Reading to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)—

(a) any question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;
(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate division;
(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.

F. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single question on any further amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown; and
(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment; and
(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has—

(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or
(b) disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords. Amendment which has been disagreed to,

the Speaker shall put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

G. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on urther messages from the Lords

(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on any further message from the Lords to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords proposals.

H. Programme orders: Reasons Committee

(1) This order applies in relation to any Committee to be appointed to draw up Reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sittin at which it is appointed.

(4) Proceedings in the Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than half an hour after their commencement.

(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (4), the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(6)The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further question being put.

I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions

(1) The provisions of this order apply to proceedings in the House or in Committee of the whole House on a Bill which is subject to a programme order.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted Business) applies to the proceedings for any period after ten o'clock (or on Thursday, seven o'clock) allocated to them in accordance with the programme order.

(3) The proceedings may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If, on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day, a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency Debates) would, apart from this order, stand over to seven o'clock—

(a) that motion stands over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to conclusion at or before that time; and

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

(5) If a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day is one to which a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day is postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

(6) No dilatory motion may be made in relation to the proceedings except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion is to be put forthwith.

(7) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of the programme order.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 152.

Division No. 325]
[10.27 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chidgey, David


Ainger, Nick
Church, Ms Judith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allan, Richard
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Colman, Tony


Atkins, Charlotte
Connarty, Michael


Ballard, Jackie
Cooper, Yvette


Banks, Tony
Cotter, Brian


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cranston, Ross


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Betts, Clive
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blackman, Liz
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blizzard, Bob
Davidson, Ian


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brake, Tom
Doran, Frank


Brand, Dr Peter
Dowd, Jim


Breed, Colin
Drew, David


Browne, Desmond
Drown, Ms Julia


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Etherington, Bill



Fearn, Ronnie


Caplin, Ivor
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Casale, Roger
Flint, Caroline


Caton, Martin
Flynn, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Follett, Barbara


Chaytor, David
Foster, Don (Bath)






Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foulkes, George
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
McNulty, Tony


Gapes, Mike
MacShane, Denis


Gardiner, Barry
Mactaggart, Fiona


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McWalter, Tony


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mallaber, Judy


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Goggins, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Merron, Gillian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Grogan, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hancock, Mike
Moore, Michael


Hanson, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Harvey, Nick
Morley, Elliot


Healey, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mountford, Kali


Hinchliffe, David
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hurst, Alan
Oaten, Mark


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Illsley, Eric
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Öpik, Lembit


Jenkins, Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Pendry, Tom


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keetch, Paul
Prosser, Gwyn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Kidney, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rendel, David


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roy, Frank


Lammy, David
Ruane, Chris


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ruddock, Joan


Laxton, Bob
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lepper, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Levitt, Tom
Savidge, Malcolm


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sawford, Phil


Linton, Martin
Shaw, Jonathan


Livsey, Richard
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lock, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McDonnell, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McIsaac, Shona
Stewart, David (Inverness E)





Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tyler, Paul


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Walley, Ms Joan


Stunell, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Webb, Steve


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
White, Brian



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Willis, Phil


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Timms, Stephen
Wood, Mike


Tipping, Paddy
Woodward, Shaun


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Worthington, Tony


Touhig, Don
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gibb, Nick


Amess, David
Gidley, Sandra


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Norman
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baldry, Tony
Gray, James


Barnes, Harry
Green, Damian


Beggs, Roy
Greenway, John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Grieve, Dominic


Bercow, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hague, Rt Hon William


Blunt, Crispin
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Body, Sir Richard
Hammond, Philip


Boswell, Tim
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Heald, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
Hood, Jimmy


Brazier, Julian
Hopkins, Kelvin


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Horam, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Burnett, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Burns, Simon
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Burstow, Paul
Iddon, Dr Brian


Butterfill, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Key, Robert


Cash, William
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chope, Christopher
Lansley, Andrew


Clappison, James
Letwin, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Llwyd, Elfyn


Collins, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Curry, Rt Hon David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McWilliam, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Madel, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Maples, John


Duncan, Alan
Mates, Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
May, Mrs Theresa


Evans, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norman, Archie


Flight, Howard
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pearson, Ian






Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Prior, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Robathan, Andrew
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Townend, John


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Trend, Michael


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tynan, Bill


St Aubyn, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Salmond, Alex
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walter, Robert


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wardle, Charles


Shepherd, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen


Skinner, Dennis
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whittingdale, John


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Streeter, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That in the next Session of Parliament the following Order shall have effect:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question.
(2) Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on Divisions) shall apply (and this order shall not apply) to questions—

(a) on motions or amendments in the course of proceedings on bills or allocating time to or programming such proceedings;

(b) on motions which may be made without notice;

(c) on motions to be disposed of immediately following the disposal of amendments proposed thereto, and on such amendments;

(d) on motions made under—

(i) paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 15(Exempted Business);
(ii) paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and Means motions);
(iii) sub-paragraph (l)(a) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with Bills);
(iv) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 54(Consideration of Estimates); and
(v) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 55(Questions on voting of estimates, &c); and

(e) on motions made under paragraph 3 below or to which an order made under that paragraph applies.

(3) After the moment of interruption and the conclusion of proceedings under any other Standing Order which fall to be taken immediately after it, a Minister of the Crown may make a motion to the effect that this order shall not apply to questions on any specified motions; such motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the opinion of the Speaker is challenged under paragraph (I) of this order, he shall defer the division until half-past Three o'clock on the next Wednesday on which the House shall sit.
(5) On any Wednesday to which a division has been deferred under paragraph (4) above—

(a) Members may record their votes on the question under arrangements made by the Speaker;

(b) votes may be recorded for one and a half hours after half-past Three o'clock, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division; and

(c) the Speaker, or the Chairman, shall announce the result of the deferred division as soon as may be after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Charles Wardle and Mr. David Curry be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. David Faber be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Sutcliffe]

PETITION

Pension Increase

Mr. Tom Brake: I am pleased to present this petition to the House on behalf of more than 820 residents in Carshalton and Wallington. They consider the 75p increase to have been an insult. The petition states:
The petition of Carshalton and Wallington residents
Declares that pensioners deserve a substantial increase in the basic state pension.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to increase the basic state pension.
And the petitioners remain, etc…

To lie upon the Table.

Flooding (Portsmouth)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Mr. Mike Hancock: May I say how nice it is to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I warmly welcome you to your new position.
Before I start this debate—which is essentially about events in central Southsea, on 15 September, when a considerable part of my constituency was flooded—I should like to say a big thank you to the police, the ambulance service, the Coastguard service, inshore rescue, Southern Electric staff and all those who gave such a good service on that day. I particularly thank Hampshire fire service. The help of its 20-odd units saved not only many properties in Portsmouth, but many people from experiencing an even greater tragedy than they experienced.
Many local people, despite being in great difficulties themselves, put themselves out to help others. I mention in particular Greg and Jane, the landlord and landlady of the Florence Arms, and Kieran Quade and Gareth Dupre. Both their properties were severely damaged, yet they spent a great deal of time helping others. Basement flats, low-lying bungalows and houses were all flooded, but the big difference between what happened in Portsmouth on 15 September and what is happening now in many parts of the country is that the present flooding is mainly water. In Portsmouth, it was raw sewage mixed with water. Homes, gardens, garages, shops, pubs, public parks and streets were strewn with raw sewage. Condoms, tampons and human waste were everywhere. I saw many houses which had all three in abundance.
The city council and its emergency planning officer, Alistair Hogg, did what they could, but some people suggest that local authorities just do not have the resources to cope with such emergencies and that it takes far too long for them to swing into action.
The real problem on 15 September involved Southern Water and its parent company, ScottishPower. I could mention many individuals, but I shall not list them as I am sure that the Minister wants to tell us how he proposes to prevent similar disasters from happening in future. There are many questions for Southern Water to answer. What it knew, what it did not do, what it should have done and what it has done since are all important issues.
At 6 am on 13 September, the Meteorological Office issued a special forecast. It said that heavy rain would probably deliver something like 45 mm of water over the Portsmouth area or the central Hampshire area on 15 September. Southern Water claims not to have received that severe weather warning. The warning issued on 13 September was repeated again on 14 September, when we were told that there was a 70 per cent. chance of torrential rain causing major problems in the area. Again, Southern Water denies receiving the information. What went wrong? Southern Water claims that the 30-year-old pumping station was drowned by the volume of water that came up from the sewer pipes below.
The timing raises a lot of questions. I was sitting in my office in Albert road in the heart of Portsmouth. Before 1 pm, water was coming out of the main drains in the street. Albert road was flooded not from the volume of

rain from above, but from water that was coming up from below and was already lifting the manhole covers. According to Southern Water, that should not have happened until the pumps stopped, which was well after 1.30 pm, but I and many others know that it started well before Southern Water claims that the pumping station stopped working.
Southern Water claims that the pumps were overcome by water and literally drowned. I visited the pumping station at 8 pm on 15 September and there was still at least 4 ft of water over the main pumps. What has Southern Water done for the people of Portsmouth? It has done very little and said simply that it will try to get the pumps back working. The local newspaper, which has done a valiant job trying to keep people updated on the issue, asked the managing director of Southern Water a number of questions. The headline was:
First he blamed an act of God. Now he says of the next Great Flood…We just haven't got a prayer.
It carries a picture of him about to pray for help. It was obvious that Southern Water did not expect to be able to save the city if there were another such incident.
What did Southern Water do? It got pumps in and pumped raw sewage and other waste straight into the sea across our beaches and open spaces in three different locations. It had to do that to protect the city, but it was pumping raw sewage into sensitive areas such as Langstone harbour, an area of special scientific interest and the habitat of wildlife, sealife and birds.
What did Southern Water do for the people? It offered £20,000 to the Lord Major of Portsmouth hardship fund. That £20,000 accounts for one hour of Southern Water's yearly profit, and for 35 minutes of ScottishPower's profit. It would pay the directors of those two organisations for two days. And the company thinks that that is enough. It has resisted all claims, saying that it has done everything expected of it. That is cynical, uncaring, unhelpful, hurtful and not good enough for a company that claims to have people's interests at heart.
The company claimed recently that upgrading the station would cost more than £4 million. Yet people's homes have been torn apart by this tragedy. People have lost the whole ground floor of their homes, or have had their floor boards taken up, wooden floors and carpets removed, walls chopped back to the brick work up to a metre above the water line. Some people will be out of their homes well into the middle of next year. Asked whether it should spend £4 million to protect the pumping station, the company could only say that its
priority since these events has been to restore it to normal capacity, and that is now being done. Our internal investigations continue with an examination as to whether it is possible or practical to improve the protection against flooding at the pumping station.
The company says "possible" or "practical", but action must be taken to give the people of a city the size of Portsmouth the protection that they deserve.
The floods came from neither the sea nor a river. People's homes were flooded from the main sewerage system running through the heart of the city. Public parks were not flooded because the sea flowed down the road or a river burst its banks. They were flooded because manholes in the streets started to seep human waste into a playground and a park.
Let me turn to agencies that are supposed to help. The Association of British Insurers, contacted on behalf of those who thought that they might have sufficient cover,


wrote to me to say that that is a matter for individual companies. That is not a great deal of help, and some companies have not been greatly helpful. Many people were under-insured or had no insurance.
What about Ofwat? It offered a booklet on levels of service for the water industry and a handout on its guaranteed standard scheme. For flooding from sewers, that offers a maximum of £1,000 per property for each flooding incident or the equivalent of the property's water charges for the year. That is not good enough. No one in Portsmouth has received either £1,000 or repayment of the water charge. The only offer from Southern Water has been the £20,000 for the Lord Mayor's fund.
The Environment Agency visited the station only once during the first three days, according to what it said at a public meeting held shortly afterwards. Since then, we have waited for its report with bated breath, and I hope that the Minister can update it on that response. I, and others keenly interested in the matter, have taken an independent civil engineer to the site, and his preliminary report is in the hands of the Environment Agency, where it is, we hope, assisting in its deliberations. I have also provided background papers about the site and a detailed report from an engineer who used to work there and who ran the plant.
If all that information is put together, it becomes clear that something happened in the pumping station. The capacity of the sewerage system and the station's pumps should have been enough to deal with what happened that day, but that manifestly was not so. The consequences were as I have spelled them out. I do not have the time to go into individual cases.
The Government can help with the hardship fund, a matter that I have raised with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, but as yet to no avail. They are not prepared to help as yet, but I hope that they will consider doing so. The Government could help over insurance. For some people, premiums have already been raised by 30 per cent. My local paper today carries the headline "Sunk by a postcode" over a story that says that people living in Portsmouth or West Sussex will find it extremely difficult to get mortgages or insurance on their properties. Already, the problems have begun for people not yet over the awful experience of 15 September,
Local authorities need greater help. They need ring-fenced funding to be made available, to help with emergency planning. Sadly, too few local authorities have the organisational skills or equipment necessary to deal with such problems. Their actions come far too late.
What can the Environment Agency do? It can do a lot. It can tackle the problem and take on operators such as Southern Water. The people of Portsmouth look to the agency to protect their interests and to ensure that they get justice for what happened to them.
We need to see the report sooner rather than later. The agency needs to be resourced in such a way that it can deal far sooner with such issues and report exactly what it has found back into the public domain. I urge the Minister to speed up the agency's report.
Ofwat powers must be studied. Agreements with companies such as Southern Water need to be reconsidered. As with the railways, when the Conservatives privatised water they allowed operators to get away with murder as regards their responsibilities to their customers. The token gestures mentioned in the guarantee scheme are simply not

good enough and should not be allowed to continue. I urge the Government to consider carefully how those can be revised in favour of the customer.
Work needs to be done. I also ask the Government to insist that Southern Water protects a city such as Portsmouth and ensures that its pumping station is not supported with standby pumps that are below sea level to start with and must always be vulnerable. When I visited the station, the operators told me that there had already been near disasters, when the station had been flooded. At least two people who were present on 15 September have told us about incidents in the station. Many people believe that some of the flooding that finally put the station out of action resulted from temporary construction and modernisation work there.
Given that it is difficult for the Environment Agency and others to get convictions or to prosecute, I would like to think that the Government can insist that pumping stations, such as the one at Eastney, are upgraded to cope with the additional flows that arise from the increased development and global warming, and are properly maintained to ensure that maximum pumping capacity is not compromised.
The stations should be thoroughly evaluated—independently, if necessary—to identify the potential risks and consequences of loss of, or a temporary reduction in, pumping capacity, or loss or interruption of electrical or fuel supply. They should be modified to eliminate all foreseeable routes to a catastrophic total loss of operational capacity, which is what occurred on 15 September. They should also be modified to introduce failsafe measures to ensure that flows either in excess of those predictable, or occurring during emergencies, are safely channelled away from sensitive residential areas. In an area such as Portsmouth, which is completely surrounded by the sea, that must be a practical suggestion.
The stations should incorporate storm prediction and remote rainfall sensors to provide advance warning of problems, or potential flows in excess of capacity, to alert emergency services promptly. Slow response diesel pumps should be brought in sufficiently early to attain full capacity when needed, but they should be put where they are out of harm's way—not below ground, inside a pumping station, where the water could flood them.
Prosecuting water companies can be difficult and slow, and is inevitably ineffective in achieving a solution. The current process can tackle problems only retrospectively. Is further regulation of the industry to be considered? I hope that it is and that the Minister will say that the Government are looking into regulation of the water industry to enforce improvements in ageing installations ahead of further disastrous flooding.
All of that and much more needs to be dealt with. Southern Water has a lot of questions to answer and it has failed miserably to deliver. We are grateful for the campaigning actions of the BBC South team, led by Freddy Rostan, and to Meridian Broadcasting, but more importantly for the campaigning skills of the local newspaper, doing what local newspapers do well. The News has pushed, dug and shoved and tried to humiliate Southern Water by putting the moral case on behalf of the people of Portsmouth. So far, we are still not getting the answers, despite the fact that the company has attended public meetings. It is not good enough for the company merely to take the flak for one night when people are so


disappointed because their homes, their wedding photographs, their cars and all their property have been ruined.
People expect companies as large as Southern Water and its parent company, ScottishPower, to do more. Furthermore, they expect the Government to insist that such companies do more. Justice must be done. Those events took place on 15 September; it is not good enough that, on 7 November, questions remain unanswered and people continue to live with that tragedy—as they will probably have to do for a further six months or a year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on the terrible incident that took place in Portsmouth on 15 September. He makes a powerful case. I realise that I may not be able to deal with all the points that he has raised, but I shall study his speech and if there are further matters on which I need to respond, I shall do so. I shall also ensure that his speech is drawn to the attention of those people who need to read it—although I imagine that he may do that himself.
I fully sympathise with those people whose properties were flooded in Portsmouth and, more recently, in other parts of the country. On a previous occasion, I was flooded—although not as seriously as the hon. Gentleman's constituents—and I am aware of how distressing it can be.
Many of the recent flooding incidents were caused by swollen rivers, but as the hon. Gentleman points out, the Portsmouth incident was different; it was due to exceptional rainfall over a low-lying area. The Meterological Office stated that, apparently, the rainfall on that day was a one in a 100 year event. The storm was extreme; it could be a further example of the global warming process to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions referred in his statement to the House last week.
Sewerage undertakings are under a statutory duty to ensure the effectual drainage of their area under section 94 of the Water Industries Act 1991, but that is not an absolute duty to prevent flooding in any circumstances. Portsmouth, like many urban areas, is served by combined sewers that carry both foul water and rainwater; they can usually cope adequately in normal storm conditions. However, in times of exceptionally heavy rainfall, such sewers will sometimes be unable to cope with the significant extra amount of flood water. That can result in their surcharging to such an extent that diluted sewage made up of storm water and foul water overflows into the street. That would be the case whether the flooding was due to swollen rivers or to exceptional rainfall.
Those people who have experienced flooding elsewhere in the country have encountered problems similar to those suffered by the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, we are determined to learn the lessons of that experience. However, it must be realised that flood precautions can only protect so far. In extreme conditions, such as we have seen recently, there will be problems.
In relation to the Portsmouth incident, I am assured that the Eastney sewage pumping station was working at full capacity and managed to cope with the rising levels of surface water until its pumps and the motors driving them were eventually inundated. The rainfall started to peak at 10 am, and the first of Southern Water's large diesel storm pumps was brought into operation at 10.25; the other pumps were used subsequently. All the pumps continued to operate until 13.07—that is the time given by the company, although the hon. Gentleman said it was at 13.30—when the diesel engines powering the pumps were themselves overwhelmed by the rising flood water in the pumping station.
Southern Water was able to restart some of the pumps by 15.30 to enable flood water to be pumped to the long sea outfall. In addition, temporary pumps were used. Since the incident, company staff and contractors have been working to bring all the pumps back on line. The Eastney pumping station houses electric and diesel pumps, and I understand that the diesel pumps suffered severe damage in the flood. Southern Water considered whether to buy new ones, but as delivery could have taken several months and might have prolonged the temporary pumping measures at Eastney until well into next year, the company decided that it would be more effective and efficient to repair the existing pumps than to buy new ones.
I understand that these pumps had never been overwhelmed before. As the hon Gentleman is aware, there have been several more extreme rainfall incidents since 15 September, and I am told that the pumping station has coped with them all. The hon. Gentleman has asked in a recent letter why the pumps were situated below ground level, and he referred to that in his speech. The reason is that the sewerage system is below ground and, to a large extent, it relies on gravitational flow. However, those pumps were protected by concrete walls at least 13 m deep in a dry well shaft which, in normal circumstances, would remain immune to flooding. On 15 September, flooding within the pumping station reached unprecedented levels and penetrated ventilation ducts situated a metre below the top of the concrete walls. Southern Water assures me that it will now be investigating whether further measures can be taken to protect the diesel engines driving the pumps.
Even after the pumps were slowly being brought back on line, Southern Water retained temporary emergency pumping plant at the Eastney pumping station as a precaution in the event of further heavy rainfall. That enabled discharges of waste water to be made into Langstone harbour, as a temporary measure which reduced the risk of more flooding of properties in periods of further heavy rainfall since the incident. The Environment Agency was consulted on those temporary discharges and did not object. It did, however, seek assurances from Southern Water that the repair work to the pumps would proceed with full speed and it continued to monitor the environmental impact of the incident. While I accept that pumping this waste water into Langstone harbour was not ideal, it was a temporary measure. I understand that no discharges have been made into the harbour since 11 October.
On the question of compensation, I hope that those affected are able to recover their losses under their normal household insurance policies, although, as the hon. Gentleman says, some of his constituents are


under-insured and some are no doubt not insured. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Government will discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry might respond quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this and deal with problems of insurability of homes and businesses at risk of flooding.
For those not insured or not fully insured, I understand that limited cash help only for those on income support or jobseeker's allowance may be available from the social fund, which is administered through the Benefits Agency. Help is given in the form of a grant or interest free loan. That is obviously likely to apply to only a small number of people who have particularly low incomes.
Help may also be available, as the hon. Gentleman said, from the fund set up by the Lord Mayor following the incident, to which Southern Water has made a donation. I understand that so far grants of only £6,000 have been made out of the fund. The Lord Mayor has recently relaxed some of the qualifying conditions to enable more of the money to be made available. I am assured that its availability has been well publicised in the area and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to advise his constituents who are suffering hardship to make a claim.

Mr. Hancock: The one condition that has not been relaxed is that if there was an insurable risk, people cannot claim from the hardship fund. However, if someone is not insured, everything that they have is at risk. That is what needs to be changed.

Mr. Mullin: That is a discussion that the hon. Gentleman needs to have with the Lord Mayor, rather than with the Government.
The hon. Gentleman is already aware that the water industry operates a statutory guaranteed standards scheme, which has been further improved by the Government. As the hon. Gentleman said, under the scheme, householders are now entitled to a refund of a year's sewerage charges every time there is sewage flooding of a customer's property from a public sewer, up to a maximum on each occasion of £1,000.
There are however certain circumstances in which a rebate of sewerage charges is not payable. One of these is where the event results from exceptional weather conditions, and I understand that that is why Southern Water did not feel that it was liable to pay any rebate of sewerage charges in respect of this particular incident. In the first instance, that is a matter for its judgment. Where a dispute arises between an undertaker and a customer as to the right of a customer to a payment or credit under the scheme, the matter may be referred to the Director General of Water Services by either party for determination. That is an avenue open to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Southern Water has so far received only a handful of claims directly. It believes that the reason for this is that most people affected have been able to claim successfully from their insurance. Although it did not operate the guaranteed standards scheme, it did help with the clean-up operation. I understand that some 260 properties were affected in what is a mainly residential area of Victorian terraced houses. Southern Water's assistance involved pumping water out of properties, disinfecting the affected areas and clearing visible contamination from gardens.
The Government for their part are directing substantial resources to measures aimed at protecting communities in incidents such as these. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced over the weekend, we will be providing £51 million extra for flood defence work over and above that already agreed in the spending review.
We are taking a number of other steps that we believe will help people and local authorities to cope with weather difficulties. They include improvement to the working of the Bellwin system, which exists to help local authorities defray unexpected costs in floods and other emergencies. Assistance from Bellwin will now be automatic for local authorities dealing with the current floods and the rate of Government support will increase from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent. Valid claims will be settled within 15 workings days and claims for advance payment can be made. Research work at the Hadley centre and the United Kingdom climate impacts programme will be enhanced and speeded up to improve our prediction and assessment of the effects of climatic change.
I understand that Portsmouth city council has already notified my Department of the problems that it has experienced during the flooding, but officials have yet to receive a formal application for assistance under the Bellwin scheme. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman urge the council to make such an application as soon as possible.
On the calls for an inquiry, I understand that the Environment Agency is carrying out an independent investigation into the incident to assess whether an offence has been committed by Southern Water under the Water Resources Act 1991. To come to a decision, the agency has asked Southern Water to provide a large amount of information and data. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not a simple operation. It is not until all the relevant evidence has been accumulated that the agency will be in a position to reach a conclusion with respect to potential legal proceedings. The agency has given assurances that it will provide a full report in due course and that it will be publicly available. I have every confidence that the agency will be very thorough and I look forward to its report.
In the longer term, I understand that Southern Water is now well advanced towards delivery of an improvement scheme for the drainage catchments of both Portsmouth and Havant. The scheme will provide secondary biological treatment before discharge via the long sea outfall. As a direct result of the recent incident, the Environment Agency will also, in conjunction with Southern Water, review the design proposals with particular regard to protection of the pumping station.
Therefore, at the present time, I see no reason for any other form of inquiry. With the best will in the world, there is no way in which every incident of this nature can be provided for in advance. In the end, the only way to mitigate the consequences is for people to be adequately insured. As I have already said, we will discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry might better respond to such emergencies.
I hope that I have given some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that several issues must to be resolved and, if he wishes to pursue any further points, I shall be glad to do reply to him in writing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.